'  n 


A 


K. 


THE 


rROPOSED  REVISION 


OP  THE 


WESTMINSTER  STANDARDS 


BY 


WILLIAM  G.  T.  SHEDD,  D.D. 


BX 
\  9183 
;  .S54 

1890 


I- 


NEW  YORK 

CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 

1890  \ 


{•P  ! 


^7.  10.  19  ^ 


OiCALS^. 


BX 

9183 

.35^ 

1890 

She 

dd,  W 

illiam  Greenough 

Th 

ayer, 

1820 

-1894. 

The 

prop 

osed 

revision  of 

the 

T  J/cv  c  ■<-  m  -i  n 

■i  c  f-  c\y 

Q,4-  o  tn  /^  o  y  A  c 

DR.   SHEDD'S   WORKS. 


Dogmatic  Theology. 

Two  vols.,  8vo, •  •  §7.00 

A  History  of  Christian  Doctrine. 

Two  vols.,  crown  8vo.    Seventh  Edition,  •  •  •      5.00 

Homiletics  and  Pastoral  Theology. 

Crown  8vo.    Ninth  Edition,         .  •         •  •         •  2.50 

Literary  Essays  (with   Portrait). 

Crown  8vo.    Revised  Edition,  •         •  •  *         •       2.50 

Theological  Essays. 

Crown  Svo.    Revised  Edition,     .  •  •  •  •  2.50 

Commentary  on  Romans. 

Crown  Svo,  ...•••••       2.50 

Sermons  to  the  Natural  Man, 

Crown  Svo.    Third  Edition.        .  .  •  •  •  2.50 

Sermons  to  the  Spiritual  Man. 

Crown  Svo,  ....■••*       2.50 

The  Doctrine  of  Endless  Punishment. 

Crown  Svo,      ......«•  1.50 


THE 


JUL  10  I9l,q 


PROPOSED  REVISION 


OF  THE 


WESTMINSTER  STANDARDS 


BY 


WILLIMI  G.  T.  SHEDD,  D.D. 


NEW   YORK 

CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 

1890 


COPYEIGHT,  1890,  BY 

CHAELES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 


■rR0W3 

PRINTING  AND  BOOKBINDING  COMPANY, 

NEW  YORK. 


PREFACE. 


The  distinction  between  doctrines  and  persons,  projects 
and  their  advocates,  is  a  valid  one.  One  may  have  little 
or  no  confidence  in  a  doctrine  or  a  project,  and  yet  have 
confidence  in  an  advocate  of  it,  becanse  a  person  may  be 
different  in  his  spirit  and  intention  from  the  nature  and 
tendency  of  his  doctrine,  while  his  doctrine  is  a  fixed 
quantity.  Coleridge,  in  a  conversation  with  a  Unitarian 
friend  said  :  "  I  make  the  greatest  difference  between  ans 
and  isms.  I  should  deal  insincerely  with  yon,  if  I  said 
that  I  thought  Unitarianism  is  Christianity  ;  but  God 
forbid  that  I  should  doubt  that  you  and  many  other 
Unitarians  are  in  a  practical  sense  very  good  Christians." 
(Table  Talk,  April  4,  1832.)  This  distinction  is  impor- 
tant in  the  present  controversy.  "When  the  opponent  of 
revision  asserts  that  revision  is  anti-Calvinistic  in  its  logic 
and  tendency.^  he  does  not  assert  that  all  of  its  advocates 
are  anti-Calvinists.  The  writer  of  these  papers  believes 
that  the  natural  and  inevitable  effect  of  the  proposed 
changes  in  the  Confession,  will  be  more  or  less  to  weaken 
and  break  down  the  Calvinistic  system  contained  in  it, 
and  endeavors  to  prove  it ;  but  he  does  not  believe  or  say 
that  this  is  the  desire  or  intention  of  many  who  urge 
them. 

The  spirit  of  revision,  which  it  is  so  often  said  is  ^'  in 
the  air,"  is  pervading  Pan-Presbyterianism.     If  it  pre- 


iv  PREFACE. 

vails,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  historical  Calvin- 
ism of  the  past  will  be  considerably  modified  ;  and  doc- 
trinal modification  is  an  inclined  plane.  In  a  materialistic 
age,  when  the  Calvinistic  type  of  doctrine  is  vehemently 
opposed,  the  Presbyterian  Church  should  not  modify  the 
creed  from  which  it  has  derived  its  past  solidarity  and 
power,  but  should  reaffirm  it ;  and  non-revision  is  reaf- 
firmation. 

New  York,  February  33,  1890. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Inexpediency  of  the  Revision  op  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession,   1 

Objections   to   the    Reyision    of    the  Westminster   Con- 
fession,    .13 

Are  there  Doctrinal  Errors  in  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession ? 18 

The  Westminster   Standards  and  the   Universal   Offer 
of  Mercy, 24 

The  Meaning  and  Value  of  the  Doctrine  of  Decrees,     .    30 

What  is  the  Sovereignty  of  God  in  Election  ?  .        .        .72 

The  Westminster  Standards  and  the  "Larger  Hope,"     .    78 


THE  PROPOSED  REVISION 


OF  THK 


WESTMINSTER  STANDARDS. 


I. 


INEXPEDIENCY   OF   THE   REVISION   OF   THE   WESTMINSTER 

CONFESSION.! 

The  question  whetlier  tlie  Westminster  Confession 
shall  be  revised,  has  been  referred  to  the  whole  Church 
represented  by  the  presbyteries.  The  common  sentiment 
of  the  denomination  must  determine  the  matter.  The 
expression  of  opinion  during  the  few  months  prior  to  the 
presbyterial  action  is,  therefore,  of  consequence.  It  is 
desirable  that  it  should  be  a  full  expression  of  all  varieties 
of  views,  and  as  a  contribution  towards  it,  we  purpose 
to  assign  some  reasons  why  the  revision  of  the  Confession 
is  not  expedient. 

1.  In  the  first  place  it  is  inexpedient,  because  in  its  ex- 
isting form  as  drawn  up  by  tlie  Westminster  Assembly  it 
has  met,  and  well  met,  all  the  needs  of  the  Cliurch  for  the 
past  two  centuries.  The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  since  1700  has  passed  througli  a  varied  and 
sometimes  difficult  experience.     The  controversies  in  the 

'  New  York  Evangelist,  September  5,  1889. 


2  THE   PEOPOSED   REVISION   OF 

beginning  between  tlie  Old  and  Kew  Lights,  and  still 
more  the  vehement  disputes  that  resulted  in  the  division 
of  the  Church  in  1837,  have  tried  the  common  symbol  as 
severely  as  it  is  ever  likely  to  be.     But  through  them  all 
both  theolosfical  divisions  were  content  with  the  Confes- 
sion  and  Catechisms  as  they  stood,  and  both  alike  claimed 
to  be  true  to  them.     J^either  party  demanded  a  revision 
on  any  doctrinal  points ;  and  both  alike  found  in  them  a 
satisfactory  expression  of  their 'faith.      What  is  there  in 
the  Presbyterian  Church  of  to-day  that  necessitates  any 
different  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  decrees,  of  atone- 
ment, of  regeneration,  or  of  punishment,  from  that  ac- 
cepted by  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  1837,  or  1789  ?     Are 
the  statements  upon  these  points  any  more  liable  to  mis- 
conception or  misrepresentation   by   non-Calvinists   now 
than  they  were  fifty  or  a  hundred  years  ago  ?     Are  there 
any  more  "weak  consciences"  requiring  softening  expla- 
nations and  relaxing  clauses  in  the  Church  of  to-day  than 
in  former  periods  ?     And  with  reference  to  the  allowable 
differences  of  theological  opinion  within  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  is  not  a  creed  that  was  adopted  and  defended  by 
Charles  Hodge  and  Albert  Barnes  sufficiently  broad  to 
include  all  who  are  really  Calvinistic  and  Presbyterian  in 
belief  ?     "What  is  tliere,  we  repeat,  in  the  condition  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  of  to-day  that  makes  the  old  Con- 
fession of  the  past  two  hundred  years  inadequate  as  a  doc- 
trinal Standard  ?     All  the  past  successes  and  victories  of 
Presbyterianism  have  been  accomplished  under  it.     Suc- 
cess in  the  past  is  guaranty  for  success  in  the  future.     Is 
it  not  better  for  the  Church  to  work  on  the  very  same  old 
base,  in  the  very  same  straight  line  ? 

2.  Eevision  is  inexpedient,  because  the  reunion  of  the 
two  divisions  of  the  Church  was  founded  upon  the  Con- 
fession as  it  now  stands.     A  proposition  to  unite  the  two 


THE    WESTMINSTER   STANDARDS.  o 

brandies  of  Presbyterianism  by  first  revising  the  "West- 
minster documents  would  have  failed,  because  in  the  re\  i- 
sion  individual  and  party  preferences  would  have  shown 
themselves.  But  when  the  Standards  pure  and  simple 
were  laid  down  as  the  only  terms  of  union,  the  whole  mass 
^of  Presbyterians  flowed  together.  It  is  to  be  feared  that  if 
a  revision  of  the  Confession  should  take  place,  there  will  be 
a  dissatisfied  portion  of  the  Church  who  will  prefer  to  re- 
main upon  the  historic  foundation  ;  that  the  existing  har- 
mony will  be  disturbed ;  and  that  the  proposed  measures 
for  union  with  other  Presbyterian  bodies  will  fall  through. 
3.  Pevision  is  inexpedient,  because  it  will  introduce 
new  difficulties.  The  explanations  will  need  to  be  ex- 
plained. The  revision  that  is  called  for  is  said  by  its 
more  conservative  advocates,  not  to  be  an  alteration  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Confession,  but  an  explanation  only. 
Now  good  and  sufficient  explanations  of  a  creed  require 
more  space  than  can  be  afforded  in  a  concise  symbol  in- 
tended for  use  in  inducting  officers  and  members.  Such 
full  and  careful  explanations  have  been  made  all  along 
from  the  beginning,  and  the  Presbyterian  Board  of  Pub- 
lication has  issued  a  large  and  valuable  library  of  them. 
xso  one  need  be  in  any  doubt  respecting  the  meaning  of 
the  Confession  who  will  carefully  peruse  one  or  more  of 
them.  He  who  is  not  satisfied  with  the  AYestminster  doc- 
trine as  so  explained,  will  not  be  satisfied  with  it  at  all. 
But  if  brief  explanations  are  inserted  into  the  Confession 
itself,  their  brevity  will  inevitably  expose  them  to  mis- 
understanding and  misconception.  Take  an  illustration. 
An  able  minister  and  divine,  whose  Calvinism  is  unim- 
peachable, suggests  that  Confession  iii.  3  shall  read : 
"  By  the  decree  of  God,  for  the  manifestation  of  his 
glory,  some  men  and  angels  are  predestinated  unto  ever- 
lasting life,  and  othei-s  foreordained    [for  their  sins]   to 


4  THE   PROPOSED    EEVISIOI^    OF 

everlastins:  death."  If  the  clause  in  brackets  is  inserted 
without  further  explanation,  the  article  might  fairly  and 
naturally  be  understood  to  teach  tliat  the  reason  why  God 
passes  by  a  sinner  in  the  bestowment  of  regenerating 
grace  is  the  sinner's  sin.  But  St.  Paul  expressly  says  that 
the  sinner's  sin  is  not  the  cause  of  his  non-election  to  re- 
generation. "  The  children  being  not  yet  born,  neither 
having  done  any  good  or  evil,  it  was  said,  The  elder 
shall  serve  the  younger.  Esau  have  I  hated"  (Kom.  9: 
11-13).  The  reason  for  the  difference  between  the  elect 
and  non-elect  is  not  the  holiness  or  the  sin  of  either  of 
them,  but  God's  sovereign  good  pleasure.  "  He  hath 
mercy  on  whom  he  will  have  mercy,  and  whom  he  will 
he  hardeneth"  (Rom.  9  :  18).  An  explanation  like  this, 
without  further  explanation  such  as  the  proposer  would 
undoubtedly  make,  would  not  only  contradict  Scripture, 
but  change  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  into  the  Arminian. 
The  reason  for  non-election  would  no  lono;er  be  secret  and 
sovereign,  but  known  and  conditional.  All  this  liability 
to  misconstruction  is  avoided  by  the  Confession  itself  as 
it  now  stands.  For  in  ConfessioTi  iii.  7,  after  saying  that 
tlie  "  passing  by "  in  tlie  bestowment  of  regenerating 
grace  is  an  act  of  God's  sovereign  pleasure,  "  w^hereby  he 
extendeth  or  withholdeth  mercy  as  he  pleaseth,"  it  then 
adds  that  "the  ordaining  to  dishonor  and  wrath^^  is  "for 
sin."  Sin  is  here  represented  as  the  reason  for  the  judi- 
cial act  of  punishing,  but  not  for  the  sovereign  act  of  not 
regenerating.  The  only  reason  for  the  latter,  our  Lord 
gives  in  his,  "  Even  so,  Father,  for  so  it  seemed  good  in 
thy  sight." 

Other  illustrations  might  be  given  of  the  difficulty  of 
avoiding  misconception  when  a  systematic  creed  is  sought 
to  be  explained,  particularly  in  its  difficult  points,  by  the 
brief  interpolation  of  words  and  clauses.     The  method  is 


TPIE   WESTMINSTER   STANDAKDS.  5 

too  sliort.  Moro  s^^ace  is  required  than  can  be  spared. 
It  is  better,  therefore,  to  let  a  carefully  constructed  and 
concisely  phrased  creed  like  the  Westminster  stand  ex- 
actly as  it  was  drawn  up  by  the  sixty-nine  coniniissioners, 
in  the  five  weekly  sessions  for  nearly  nine  years,  and  have 
it  explained,  qualified,  and  defended  in  published  trea- 
tises, in  sermons,  and  especially  in  catechetical  lectures. 
Had  the  ministry  been  as  faithful  as  it  should  in  years 
past  in  catechetical  instruction,  there  would  be  little  dif- 
ficulty in  understanding  the  Westminster  creed.  The 
remedy  needed  is  in  this  direction,  not  in  that  of  a  re- 
vision. 

4.  Revision  is  inexpedient,  because  there  is  no  end  to 
the  process.  It  is  like  the  letting  out  of  water.  The  doc- 
trine of  the  divine  decrees  is  the  particular  one  selected 
by  the  presbytery  whose  request  has  brought  the  subject 
of  revision  before  tlie  General  Assembly.  But  this  doc- 
trine runs  entirely  through  the  Westminster  documents, 
so  that  if  changes  were  made  merely  in  the  third  chapter 
of  the  Confession,  it  would  be  whollv  out  of  harmonv 
with  the  remainder.  Effectual  calling,  regeneration,  per- 
severance of  the  saints,  are  all  linked  in  with  the  divine 
decree.  The  most  cursory  perusal  will  show  that  a  revi- 
sion of  the  Confession  on  this  one  subject  w^ould  amount 
to  an  entire  recastino;  of  the  creed. 

5.  Revision  is  inexpedient,  because  it  may  abridge  the 
liberty  of  interpretation  now  afforded  by  the  Confession. 
As  an  example  of  the  variety  in  explanation  admitted  by 
the  creed  as  it  now  stands,  take  the  statement  that  "  God 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  beginning, 
created  or  made  from  nothing  the  world,  and  all  things 
therein,  in  the  space  of  six  days."  He  who  holds  the 
patristic  view  that  the  days  of  Genesis  were  periods,  and 
he   who  holds  the   modern  opinion   that  the  days  were 


6  THE    PEOPOSED    REVISION    OF 

solar,  can  subscribe  to  tlie  Westminster  statement.  But 
if  revised  in  the  interest  of  either  view,  the  subscriber  is 
shut  up  to  it  alone.  Another  example  is  found  in  the 
statement  respecting  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin.  The  advo- 
cate of  natural  union,  or  of  representative  union,  or  of 
both  in  combination,  can  find  a  foothold,  provided  only 
that  he  holds  to  the  'penal  nature  of  the  first  sin.  An- 
other instance  is  the  article  concerning  "  elect  infants." 
As  the  tenet  was  formulated  by  the  Assembly,  it  has 
been  understood  to  mean,  (a)  that  all  infants  dying  in 
infancy  are  elected  as  a  class,  some  being  saved  by  cov- 
enanted mercy,  and  some  by  uncovenanted  niercy  ;  (b) 
that  all  infants  dying  in  infancy  are  elected  as  a  class — all 
alike,  those  within  the  Church  and  those  outside  of  it, 
being  saved  by  divine  mercy,  nothing  being  said  of  the 
covenant ;  (c)  that  djdng  infants  are  elected  as  individ- 
uals, some  being  elect,  and  some  non-elect.  Probably 
each  of  these  opinions  liad  its  representatives  in  the 
Assembly,  and  hence  the  indefinite  form  of  the  state- 
ment. The  writer  regards  the  first-mentioned  view  as 
best  supported  by  Scripture  and  the  analogy  of  faith ; 
but  there  are  many  who  advocate  the  second  view,  and 
perhaps  there  may  be  some  who  hold  the  third.  The 
libert}^  of  opinion  now  conceded  by  the  Confession  on  a 
subject  respecting  which  tlie  Scripture  data  are  few, 
would  be  ill-exchanged  for  a  statement  that  would  admit 
of  but  one  interpretation. 

6.  Kevision  is  inexpedient,  because  the  Westminster 
Confession,  as  it  now  reads,  is  a  sufiiciently  broad  and 
liberal  creed.  AVe  do  not  say^hat  it  is  sufiiciently  broad 
and  liberal  for  every  man  and  every  denomination  ;  but 
it  is  as  broad  and  liberal  for  a  Calvinist  as  any  Calvinist 
should  desire.  For  whoever  professes  Calvinism,  professes 
a  precise  form  of  doctrine.     He  expects  to  keep  within 


THE   WESTMINSTER   STANDARDS.  7 

definite  metes  and  bounds  ;  he  is  not  one  of  those  religion- 
ists who  start  from  no  premises,  and  come  to  no  con- 
chisions,  and  hold  no  tenets.  The  Presbyterian  Chnrch 
is  a  Calvinistic  Chnrch.  It  will  be  the  beginning  of  its 
decline,  as  it  already  has  been  of  some  Calvinistic  denom- 
inations, when  it  begins  to  swerve  from  this  dogmatic 
position.  It  mnst  therefore  be  distingnished  among  the 
Churches  for  doctrinal  consistency,  comprehensiveness, 
and  firmness.  But  inside  of  tlie  metes  and  bounds  es- 
tablished by  divine  revelation,  and  to  which  it  has  vol- 
untarily confined  itself,  it  has  a  liberty  that  is  as  large 
as  the  kingdom  of  God.  It  cannot  get  outside  of  that 
kingdom,  and  should  not  desire  to.  But  within  it,  it  is 
as  free  to  career  as  a  ship  in  the  ocean,  as  an  eagle  in  the 
air.  Yet  the  ship  cannot  sail  beyond  the  ocean,  nor  the 
eagle  fly  beyond  the  sky.  Liberty  within  the  immeasura- 
ble bounds  and  limits  of  God's  truth,  is  the  only  true 
liberty.  All  else  is  license.  The  Westminster  Con- 
fession, exactly  as  it  now  reads,  has  been  the  creed  of  as 
free  and  enlarged  intellects  as  ever  lived  on  earth.  The 
substance  of  it  was  the  strons^  and  fertile  root  of  the  two 
freest  movements  in  modern  history:  that  of  the  Protes- 
tant Keformation  and  that  of  Hepublican  Government. 
Xo  Presbyterian  should  complain  that  the  creed  of  his 
Church  is  narrow  and  stiflins:. 

And  here  we  notice  an  objection  urged  against  the 
Confession  relative  to  the  tenet  of  limited  redemption. 
It  is  said  that  it  is  not  sufficiently  broad  and  liberal  in 
aimouncing  the  boundless  compassion  of  God  towards  all 
men  indiscriminatelv,  and  in  invitin<x  all  men  without 
exception  to  cast  themselves  upon  it.  But  read  and 
ponder  the  following  statements  : 

"  Pepentance  unto  life  is  an  evangelical  grace,  the  doc- 
trine whereof   is   to  be  preached  in  season   and   out  of 


8  THE   niOPOSED    REVISION   OF 

season  bj  every  minister  of  tlie  gospel,  as  well  as  that 
of  faith  in  Christ.  It  is  every  man's  duty  to  endeavor  to 
repent  of  his  particular  sins,  particularly.  Every  man  is 
bound  to  make  private  confession  of  his  sins  to  God, 
praying  for  the  pardon  thereof,  npon  which,  and  the 
forsaking  of  them,  he  shall  find  mercy.  Prayer,  with 
thanksgiving,  being  one  special  part  of  religious  worship, 
is  by  God  required  of  all  men.  Prayer  is  to  be  made  for 
all  sorts  of  men  living,  or  that  shall  live  hereafter,  but  not 
for  the  dead.  God  is  to  be  worshipped  everywhere  in 
spirit  and  in  truth,  and  in  secret  each  one  by  himself. 
God  in  his  Word,  by  a  positive  moral  commandment,  binds 
all  men  in  all  ages.  The  grace  of  God  is  manifested  in  the 
second  covenant,  in  that  he  freely  provideth  and  offer- 
eth  to  sinners  a  mediator,  and  life  and  salvation  in  him. 
The  ministry  of  the  gospel  testifies  that  whosoever  be- 
lieves in  Christ  shall  be  saved,  and  excludes  none  that 
wnll  come  nnto  him,  God  is  able  to  search  the  heart, 
hear  the  requests,  pardon  the  sins,  and  fulfil  the  desires, 
of  all." 

These  declarations,  scattered  broadcast  through  the 
Westminster  Confession  and  Catechisms,  teach  the  uni- 
versality of  the  Gospel,  except  no  human  creature  from 
the  offer  of  it,  and  exclude  no  human  creature  from  its 
benefits.  Their  consistency  w^ith  the  doctrine  of  election 
is  assumed,  but  not  explained,  in  the  Confession  of  Faith. 
And  no  revision  of  this  by  the  mere  interpolation  of  a  few 
words  or  clauses,  will  make  the  subject  any  clearer,  or 
stop  all  objections. 

'7.  Pevision  is  inexpedient,  because  the  Westminster 
Standards  already  make  full  provision  for  those  ex- 
ceptional cases,  on  account  of  which  revision  is  claimed 
by  its  advocates  to  be  needed.  It  is  said  that  there  are 
some  true  believers  in  the  Lord  Jesns  Christ,  who  cannot 


THE   WESTMINSTER   STAN1-)AKDS.  0 

adopt  all  the  AVestminster  statements,  who  3'et  should  not 
be,  and  actually  are  not,  excluded  from  the  Presbyterian 
Church  ;  that  there  are  tender  consciences  of  good  men, 
whose  scruples  are  to  be  respected.  But  these  cases  are 
referred  by  the  Form  of  Government  to  the  chureli 
session,  and  power  is  given  to  it  to  receive  into  member- 
ship any  person  who  trusts  in  the  blood  of  Christ  for  tlie 
remission  of  sin,  although  his  doctrinal  knowledge  and 
belief  may  be  unsatisfactory  on  some  points,  lie  nuiy 
stumble  at  predestination,  but  if  with  the  publican  he 
cries  "  God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner,"  he  has  the  root 
of  the  matter  in  him,  and  is  a  regenerate  child  of  God. 
But  why  should  the  whole  Presbyterian  Church  revise  its 
entire  creed,  so  as  to  make  it  fit  these  exceptional  cases? 
"Why  should  the  mountain  go  to  Mohammed  ?  Why 
should  a  genuine  but  deficient  evangelical  knowledge  and 
experience  be  set  up  as  the  type  of  doctrine  for  the  whole 
denomination  ?  These  "babes  in  Christ"  need  the  educa- 
tion of  the  full  and  complete  system  of  truth,  and  should 
gradually  be  led  up  to  it,  instead  of  bringing  the  system 
down  to  their  level.  There  is  sometimes  a  misconception 
at  this  point.  We  have  seen  it  stated  that  the  member- 
ship of  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  not  required  or  ex- 
pected to  hold  the  same  doctrine  with  the  officers ;  that 
the  pastor,  elders,  and  deacons  must  accept  the  Confession 
of  Faith  "  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in 
the  Holy  Scriptures,"'  but  that  the  congregation  need  not. 
But  this  error  arises  from  confounding  the  toleration  of  a 
deficiency  with  the  endorsement  of  it.  Because  a  churcli 
session  tolerates  in  a  particular  person,  who  gives  evidence 
of  faith  in  Christ,  an  error  respecting  foreordination,  or 
even  some  abstruse  point  in  the  trinity,  or  the  incarna- 
tion, it  does  not  thereby  endorse  the  error.  It  does  not 
sanction   his  opinion  on  these  subjects,  but  only  endures 


10  THE   PROPOSED    REVISION   OF 

it,  in  view  of  his  religious  experience  on  the  vital  points 
of  faith  and  repentance,  and  with  the  hope  that  his  sub- 
sequent growth  in  knowledge  will  bring  him  to  the  final 
rejection  of  it.  The  Presbyterian  Church  tolerates  thea- 
ti'e-going  in  some  of  its  members :  that  is  to  say,  it  does 
not  discipline  them  for  it.  But  it  does  not  formally 
approve  of  and  sanction  theatre-going.  A  proposition  to 
revise  the  Confession  by  inserting  a  clause  to  this  effect, 
in  order  to  meet  the  wishes  and  practice  of  theatre-go- 
ing church-members,  w^ould  be  voted  down  by  the  pres- 
byteries. 

The  position  that  the  officers  of  a  church  may  have  one 
creed,  and  the  membership  another,  is  untenable.  No 
church  could  live  and  thrive  upon  it.  A  Trinitarian 
clergy  preaching  to  an  Arian  or  Socinian  membership, 
would  preach  to  unwilling  hearers.  And  although  the 
difference  is  not  so  great  and  so  vital,  yet  a  Calvinistic 
clergy  preaching  to  an  Arminian  membership,  or  an 
Arminian  clergy  to  a  Calvinistic  membership,  would  on 
some  points  find  unsympathetic  auditors.  Pastor  and 
people,  officers  and  members,  must  be  homogeneous  in 
doctrine,  in  order  to  a  vigorous  church-life.  If,  there- 
fore, a  certain  class  of  members  is  received  into  a  church, 
who  do  not  on  all  points  agree  with  the  Church  creed, 
this  is  not  to  be  understood  as  giving  the  members  gener- 
ally a  liberty  to  depart  from  the  Church  creed,  or  to  be  a 
reason  for  revising  it.^ 

The  case  is  different  with  the  officers  of  the  church. 


'  The  qviestion  whether  there  shall  be  a  short  creed  to  be  used  in  the 
admission  of  members  into  the  Church,  is  entirely  distinct  from  that 
of  revision.  Such  a  creed  ought  not,  of  course,  to  contain  anything 
contradictory  to  tlie  larger  creed  which  makes  a  part  of  the  constitution 
of  the  Church,  and  is  used  in  the  induction  of  ministers,  elders,  and 
theological  professors. 


THE    WESTMINSTER   STANDARDS.  11 

There  is  no  exceptional  class  in  this  instance.  Neither 
the  session  nor  the  pi-esbjtery  have  any  authority  to  dis- 
pense with  the  acceptance  of  any  part  of  the  Confession 
of  Faith,  when  a  pastor,  elder,  or  deacon  is  inducted  into 
office.  There  is  no  toleration  of  defective  views  provided 
for,  wiien  those  who  are  to  teach  and  rule  the  Church  are 
put  into  the  ministry.  And  this  for  the  good  reason  that 
ministers  and  elders  are  expected  to  be  so  well  indoctrin- 
ated, that  they  are  "  apt  to  teach  *'  and  competent  to 
''rule  well."  Some  propose  "loose  subscription"  as  a 
remedy,  when  candidates  of  lax  or  unsettled  views  present 
themselves  for  licensure  and  ordination.  This  is  demor- 
alizing, and  kills  all  simplicit}^  and  godly  sincerity.  Bet- 
ter a  thousand  times  for  a  denomination  to  alter  its  creed, 
than  to  allow  its  ministry  to  "  palter  with  words  in  a 
double  meaning  ; "  than  to  permit  an  Arian  subscription 
to  the  Xicene  Symbol,  an  Arminian  subscription  to  the 
Westminster  Confession,  a  Calvinistic  subscription  to 
the  Articles  of  Wesley,  a  Restorationist  subscription  to 
the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment. 

For  these  reasons,  it  seems  to  us  that  the  proposed  re- 
vision of  the  Westminster  Confession  is  not  wise  or  ex- 
pedient. The  revision  of  a  denominational  creed  is  a  rare 
occurrence  in  ecclesiastical  liistory.  Commonly  a  denom- 
ination remains  from  first  to  last  upon  the  base  that  was 
laid  for  it  in  the  beginning  by  its  fathers  and  founders. 
And  when  revision  does  occur,  it  is  seldom  in  the  direc- 
tion of  fulness  and  precision.  Usually  the  alteration  is 
in  favor  of  vague  and  looser  statements.  Even  slight 
changes  are  apt  to  be  followed  by  greater  ones.  The  dis- 
position to  revise  and  alter,  needs  watching.  In  an  age 
when  the  general  drift  of  the  unregenerate  world  is  away 
from  the  strong  statements  of  the  Hebrew  prophets,  of 
Christ  and  his  inspired  Apostles,  it  is  of  the  utmost  im- 


12  THE   PROPOSED   PvEVISION   OF 

portance  that  the  regenerate  Church,  in  all  its  denomina- 
tions, should  stand  firm  in  the  old  paths,  and  liold  fast  to 
that  "  Word  of  God  which  is  sharper  than  a  two-edged 
sword,  piercing  even  to  the  dividing  asunder  of  soul  and 
spirit." 


THE   AVESTMINSTEll   STANDAKDS.  13 


II. 

OBJECTIONS  TO   THE   REVISION   OF  THE   WESTMINSTER 

CONFESSION.  1 

The  first  question  sent  down  to  the  presbyteries  is  the 
most  important  of  the  two;  nanielj^,  Whether  a  revision  of 
the  Confession  is  desired.  If  this  is  answered  in  the  neg- 
ative, it  will  mean  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the 
present  day  is  satisfied  with  its  ancestral  faith,  as  formu- 
lated in  its  Standards,  and  accords  witli  the  Church  of  the 
past  in  this  respect.  It  will  be  a  formal  and  positive  re- 
affinnation  of  the  historic  Calvinism,  at  a  time  when  this 
system  of  doctrine  is  charged  with  being  unscriptural,  er- 
roneous, and  antiquated  by  modern  theological  progress. 
If  it  be  answered  in  the  afiirmative,  it  will  mean  that  the 
Church  of  the  present  day  is  more  or  less  dissatisfied  with 
tlie  doctrines  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  and  is  no 
longer  willing  to  endorse  and  preach  them  as  that  body  of 
divines  defined  and  stated  them.  Revision  is  alteration^ 
more  or  less.  The  object  is  not  merely  to  make  sure  that 
the  creed  just  as  it  stands  is  understood ;  but  to  modify  it 
either  in  its  structural  plan,  its  component  parts,  its  em- 
phasis, or  its  general  perspective.  The  second  question, 
How  much  revision  is  desired  ?  is  comparatively  of  less 
consequence,  because  it  is  the  first  question  alone  that 
decides  the  vital  point,  whether  the  Presbyterian  Church 

^  New  York  Presbytery,  November  20,  1889  ;  Northwestern  Presby- 
terian, November  23,  1889. 


14  THE   PROPOSED   REVISIOI^   OF 

lias  drifted  at  all  from  tlie  old  anchorage.  For  this  rea- 
son, we  present  in  a  brief  form  the  following  objections 
to  the  revision  of  the  Westminster  Confession ; 

1.  Revision  is  objectionable,  because  the  project  origin- 
ated in  too  small  a  fraction  of  the  Chnrch.  Only  iGlfteen 
presbyteries  out  of  two  hundred  and  two  united  in  over- 
turins:  the  Assemblv  in  its  favor.  The  remainine^  one 
hundred  and  eighty-seven  will  have  to  be  argued  and  per- 
suaded into  it.  But  so  important  a  step  as  the  revision  of 
the  doctrinal  basis  of  a  denomination  should  begin  in  a 
general  uprising  of  the  whole  body,  and  be  the  spontane- 
ous and  strongly  expressed  desire  of  the  great  majority  of 
its  members.  The  revision  of  secondary  matters,  like  the 
form  of  government  and  discipline,  does  not  require  this 
in  the  same  degree.  As  the  case  li0^Y  stands,  fifteen 
presbyteries  have  asked  one  hundred  and  eighty-seven 
presbyteries  if  the}^  do  not  want  to  amend  the  Confes- 
sion. There  should  have  been  a  far  wider  dissatisfac- 
tion with  the  Standards  than  this  indicates,  to  initiate  re- 
vision. 

2.  Revision  is  objectionable,  because  the  Confession  is  a 
correct  statement  of  "  the  system  of  doctrine  contained  in 
the  Scriptures."  The  system  meant  in  this  phrase  is  uni- 
versally known  as  the  Calvinistic ;  not  as  resting  upon  the 
authority  of  Calvin,  but  as  a  convenient  designation  of 
that  interpretation  of  Scripture  which  is  common  to  Au- 
gustine, Calvin,  the  Reformed  theologians,  and  the  West- 
minster divines.  The  term  "evangelical"  does  not  define 
it,  because  there  are  several  evangelical  systems,  but  only 
one  Calvinistic.  The  systems  of  Arminius,  of  Wesley, 
and  of  the  Later-Lutherans,  as  well  as  that  of  Calvin,  are 
alike  evangelical,  in  distinction  from  anti-evangelical  sys- 
tems like  Socinianism  and  Deism.  They  are  all  alike 
derived  from  the  Bible,  and  contain  the  doctrines  of  the 


Tin:    AVKST.MI^^STEU   STANDARDS.  15 

trinity,  tlio  incrivnatioii,  the  apostasy,  and  the  redemption. 
But  the  Calvinistic  interpretation  of  Scriptnre,  M'liidi  is 
tlie  one  forniuhited  in  tlie  Westminster  Standards,  differs 
from  these  other  "evangelical''  systems,  in  teaching  un- 
conditional election  and  preterition,  instead  of  conditional  ; 
limited  redemption  (not  atonement)  instead  of  nnlimited; 
regeneration  wholly  by  the  Holy  Spirit  instead  of  partly  ; 
the  total  inability  of  the  sinner  instead  of  partial.  The 
Calvinistic  system,  as  thus  discriminated  from  the  other 
"evangelical"  systems,  has  been  adopted  by  American 
Presbyterians  for  two  centuries.  Xeitlier  Old  Li2:hts,  nor 
Xew  Lights ;  neither  Old  School,  nor  Xew  School ;  have 
demanded  that  these  tenets  which  distinguish  Calvinism 
from  Arminianism  should  be  eliminated  from  the  creed. 
They  were  accepted  with  equal  sincerity  by  both  branches 
of  the  Church  in  the  reunion  of  ISTO,  and  there  is  no  rea- 
son for  altering  the  formulas  that  were  satisfactory  then, 
unless  the  belief  of  the  Church  has  altered  in  regard  to 
these  distinctive  points  of  Calvinism. 

3.  The  revision  of  the  Confession  is  objectionable,  be- 
cause the  principal  amendments  proposed  by  its  advocates 
will  introduce  error  into  it,  so  that  it  will  no  longer  be 
"  the  system  of  doctrine  contained  in  the  Scriptures." 
The  four  following  alterations  are  ni-ged  upon  the  Church  : 
(a)  To  strike  out  the  doctrine  of  the  sovei-eignty  of  God 
in  preterition,  leaving  the  doctrine  of  election  unlimited 
and  universal,  (b)  To  retain  preterition,  but  assign  as 
the  reason  for  it  the  sin  of  the  non-elect,  (c)  To  strike 
out  the  statement  that  the  number  of  the  elect  and  non- 
elect  is  ''so  certain  and  definite,  that  it  cannot  be  increased 
or  diminished"  by  "angels  and  men."  (d)  To  strike  out 
the  statement  that  no  man  who  rejects  the  "  Christian  re- 
ligion," or  the  evangelical  method  of  salvation,  can  be 
saved  by  the  legal  method  of  living  "  according  to  the 


16  THE   PEOPOSED   REVISION   OF 

lio-lit  of  nature,"  or  some  system  of  morality  which  he 
"  professes."  If  these  changes  are  made,  the  Westminster 
Standards  will  no  longer  contain  a  class  of  truths  that  are 
plainly  taught  in  Scripture,  and  will  cease  to  be  that  "sys- 
tem of  doctrine"  which  these  authors  had  in  mind,  and  to 
wliicli  the  present  generation  of  ministers  and  elders  have 
subscribed  like  their  fathers  before  them. 

4.  Revision  is  objectionable,  because  it  will  be  a  conces- 
sion to  the  enemies  of  tlie  Standards  that  their  aspersions 
of  them  are  true.  The  charges  that  have  been  made  by 
the  opponents  of  them  from  time  immemorial  are,  that 
Calvinisu]  represents  God  as  a  tyrannical  sovereign  who 
is  destitute  of  love  and  mercy  for  any  but  an  elect  few, 
that  it  attributes  to  man  the  depravity  of  devils,  deprives 
him  of  moral  freedom,  and  subjects  him  to  the  arbitrary 
cruelty  of  a  Being  who  creates  some  men  in  order  to  damn 
them.  A  few  ministers  and  elders  within  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church  endorse  these  allegations  ;  and  many  assert 
that  the  Confession  contains  no  universal  offer  of  salva- 
tion, teaclies  that  none  of  the  heathen  are  saved,  and  that 
some  infants  are  non-elect  and  lost.  The  great  reason 
assigned  by  such  Presbyterians  for  revising  the  Standards 
is,  that  they  inculcate  unscriptural  and  offensive  doctrines 
that  cannot  be  believed  or  preached.  But  this  is  to  con- 
cede that  all  preceding  Presbyterians  have  been  grossly 
mistaken  in  denying  that  the  Confession  contains  such 
doctrines,  either  directly  or  by  implication.  It  is  an 
acknowledgment  that  one  of  the  most  carefully  drawn 
and  important  of  all  the  Peformed  symbols,  inculcates  in 
a  latent  form  some  of  the  most  repulsive  tenets  conceiv- 
able by  the  human  mind.  Presbyterians  of  all  schools 
have  hitherto  met  this  calumny  on  their  creed  by  contra- 
dicting it,  and  trying  the  issue  by  close  reasoning  and  de- 
bate.    Revision  proposes,  in  the  legal  phrase,  to  give  a 


THE   WESTMINSTER  STANDARDS.  17 

cognovit,  admit  the  cliarge,  and  alter  the  standards  to  suit 
the  enemy  who  made  it. 

5.  Revision  is  objectionable,  because  it  will  reopen  the 
old  discussions  and  controversies  upon  the  difficult  doc- 
trines, without  resulting  in  any  better  definitions  of  them 
than  they  already  have  in  the  Church.  On  the  contrary, 
the  great  variety  of  changes  that  will  be  urged,  from  the 
very  conservative  to  the  very  radical,  will  introduce  a  pe- 
riod of  speculative  dispute  and  disagreement  that  will 
seriously  impair  the  existing  harmony  of  the  denomina- 
tion, and  divert  its  attention  from  the  great  practical  in- 
terests of  Christ's  kingdom  in  which  it  is  now  eno^aojed. 

CD  CD     O 

These  five  objections,  it  seems  to  us,  are  conclusive 
reasons  why  the  Presbyterian  Church  should  not  alie?', 
but  reaffirm  the  doctrines  of  the  Westminster  Standards, 
and  continue  to  teach  and  defend  them  as  they  have  been 
by  all  the  past  generations  of  Presbyterians. 
2 


18  THE   PROPOSED   REVISION   OP 


III. 

ARE    THERE    DOCTRINAL    ERRORS    IN    THE    WESTMINSTER 

CONFESSION  ?  1 

The  strongest  reason  presented  for  the  revision  of  the 
Westminster  Confession  is  the  allegation,  that  the  phrase- 
ology of  some  of  its  sections  contains  serious  error,  or  is 
liable  to  be  understood  as  containing  it.  Is  this  true  ? 
In  order  to  answer  this  question,  we  shall  examine  a  few 
of  the  principal  sections  which  are  asserted  to  be  errone- 
ous either  in  their  direct  teaching  or  in  their  implication. 

1.  Confession  iii.  3  asserts  that  "  By  the  decree  of  God, 
for  the  manifestation  of  his  glory,  some  men  and  angels 
are  predestinated  unto  everlasting  life,  and  others  fore- 
ordained to  everlastino;  death."  It  is  contended  that  this 
section  teaches,  or  is  liable  to  be  understood  as  teaching, 
that  the  decree  of  God  in  election  and  reprobation  has  no 
connection  with  sin  and  the  fall  of  man,  but  that  God  by 
an  arbitrary  decree,  wholly  irrespective  of  sin,  creates 
some  men  in  order  to  save  them,  and  some  men  in  order 
to  damn  them.  To  correct  this  alleged  error,  or  liability 
of  interpretation,  several  advocates  of  revision  propose  to 
insert  the  clause,  "On  account  of  their  sins,"  to  qualify 
the  clause,  "  Foreordained  to  everlasting  death  ; "  and 
one  advocate  of  revision  proposes  to  strike  out  the  entire 
section  concerning  election  and  reprobation. 

We  maintain  that  the  Confession  neither  teaches  the 

^  Philadelphia  Presbyterian,  October  19,  1889. 


THE    WESTMINSTER   STANDARDS.  10 

error  aforesaid,  nor  is  fairly  liable  to  be  understood  to 
teach  it.  According  to  Confession  iii.  0,  both  the  elect 
and  non-elect  are  "  fallen  in  Adam,"  and  are  thereby  in  a 
eonnnon  guilty  state  of  sin.  The  former  are  delivered 
out  o£  sin  by  regenerating  grace,  and  the  latter  are  left  in 
sin.  Why  are  the  latter  left  in  sin  ?  Because  "  God  so 
pleased,"  is  the  reason  given  by  the  Confession.  "  On 
account  of  their  sins,"  is  the  reason  which  the  reviser 
would  insert  into  the  Confession.  But  this,  surely,  can- 
not be  the  reason  why  God  leaves  a  sinner  in  his  sin.  I 
see  two  suicides  who  have  flung  themselves  into  the 
water.  I  rescue  one  of  them,  and  the  other  I  let  drown. 
They  are  both  alike  in  the  water,  and  by  their  own  free 
agency.  But  his  being  in  the  water,  is  not  the  reason 
why  I  do  not  rescue  the  one  whom  I  let  drown.  I  have 
some  other  reason.  It  may  be  a  good  one  or  a  bad  one. 
But  whatever  it  be,  it  certainly  is  not  because  the  man  is 
in  the  water.  Similarly  God  does  not  leave  a  sinner  in  his 
own  voluntary  and  loved  sin  because  he  is  in  sin.  He 
has  some  other  reason  why  lie  makes  this  discrimination 
between  two  persons,  both  of  whom  are  in  sin,  neither  of 
whom  has  any  claim  upon  his  mercy,  and  neither  of 
whom  is  more  deserving  of  election  and  regeneration  than 
the  other.  God's  reason,  in  this  case,  we  know  must  be 
a  good  one.  But  it  is  a  secret  with  himself.  The  only 
answer  to  the  inquiry,  "Why  didst  thou  elect  and  regen- 
erate Saul  of  Tarsus,  and  didst  not  elect  and  regenerate 
Judas  Iscariot  ? "  is,  "  Because  it  seemed  good  in  my 
sight." 

The  allegation  that  there  is  error  in  this  section  of  the 
Confession  arises  from  misunderstandins:  the  meanino;  oE 
the  clause,  ''Foreordained  to  everlasting  death."  It  is 
the  omission  to  regenerate^  not  the  pimis/unent  of  sin,  that 
is  intended   bv  it.     When  God  "foreordains"  a  sinner 


20  THE   PEOPOSED   EEVISION   OF 

"  to  everlasting  death,"  he  decides  to  leave  him  in  the  sin 
which  deserves  everlasting  death  and  results  in  it.  The 
non-elect  sinner  has  experienced  the  operation  of  common 
grace.  It  is  an  error  to  saj  that  God  shows  no  kind  or 
deo-ree  of  mercy  to  the  non-elect.  But  he  has  resisted 
and  defeated  it.  God  decides  to  proceed  no  further  with 
him  by  the  bestowment  of  that  special  grace  which  regen- 
ei-atesj  and  "  makes  willing  in  the  day  of  God's  power." 
The  elect  sinner  has  also  experienced,  resisted,  and  de- 
feated common  grace.  God  decides  to  proceed  further 
Avith  him,  by  effectual  calling  and  regeneration.  The  par- 
ticular question,  therefore,  in  this  paragraph  of  the  Con- 
fession is,  "  AVhy  does  God  leave  a  sinner  to  his  own  wilful 
^  free  agency  ?  "  and  not,  "  Why  does  God  jyunish  him  for 
it  ? "  The  answer  to  the  first  question  Is,  "  Because  of 
his  sovereign  good  pleasure."  The  answer  to  the  second 
is,  "  Because  of  the  ill-desert  of  sin."  The  reason  why 
God  omits  to  take  the  second  step,  and  exert  a  yet  higher 
degree  of  grace  after  his  first  step  in  exerting  a  lower  de- 
gree has  been  thwarted  by  the  resistance  of  the  sinner,  is 
entirely  different  from  the  reason  why  he  inflicts  retribu- 
tion upon  the  sinner's  sin.  This  is  more  fully  explained 
in  the  seventh  section  of  the  third  chapter,  which  should 
always  be  read  in  connection  with  the  third.  Here,  the 
reason  for  God's  "  passing  by,"  or  omitting  to  regenerate 
a  sinner,  is  found  in  "  the  unsearchable  counsel  of  his  own 
will  whereby  he  extendeth  or  withholdeth  mercy  as  he 
pleaseth."  This  first  negative  part  of  reprobation,  which 
is  properly  called  '*  preterition,"  is  not  qualified  by  the 
clause,  "  for  their  sin,"  as  the  correct  punctuation  in  the 
Board's  edition  shows.  This  latter  clause  qualifies  only 
the  sentence,  "  And  to  ordain  them  to  dishonor  and 
wrath."  Sinners  are  jpunished  "  for  their  sin,"  but  sin  is 
not  the  reason  why  God  does  not  regenerate  them.     If  sin 


THE   WESTMINSTER  STANDARDS.  21 

were  the  reason  for  non-election,  holiness,  logically,  would 
be  the  reason  for  election.  If  some  men  are  not  reaen- 
erated  because  they  are  unbelieving,  others  would  be  re- 
generated because  they  are  believing.  This  is  the  Ar- 
minian  doctrine,  not  the  Calviuistic  ;  and  this  is  the 
reason  why  the  Westminster  Assembly  did  7iot  qualify  the 
words,  "  pass  by,"  by  the  proposed  clause,  "  for  their 
sins,"  but  left  "  passing  by,"  or  "  foreordination  to  ever- 
lasting death,"  to  be  a  purely  sovereign  act  according  to 
"  the  good  pleasure  "  of  God. 

2.  Confession  iii.  4  teaches  that  "  the  angels  and  men 
thus  predestinated  and  foreordained  are  particularly  and 
unchangeably  designed ;  and  their  number  is  so  certain 
and  definite  that  it  cannot  be  either  increased  or  dimin- 
ished." One  advocate  of  revision  proposes  that  this 
whole  section  be  struck  out  of  the  Standards,  because  it 
"  is  not  a  scriptural  form  of  expression  ;  it  is  mislead- 
ing." 

What  is  the  meaning  of  this  section  ?  '•'  Increased  or 
diminished  "  by  whom  f  What  is  the  ellipsis  intended  to 
be  supplied  by  the  framers  of  the  statement  ?  Plainly 
they  meant  that  the  number  of  the  elect  and  non-elect 
cannot  be  increased  or  diminished  by  the  "angels  and 
men  "  spoken  of  in  the  connection  :  that  is,  by  any  finite 
power.  Is^either  the  human  will,  nor  the  angelic,  can  de- 
termine the  number  of  God's  elect  and  non-elect,  because 
this  depends  wholly  upon  "the  counsel  of  his  own  will." 
Of  course,  the  Assembly  did  not  mean  to  say  that  God 
could  not  have  made  the  number  of  his  elect  lai-ger  or 
smaller,  if  "  the  counsel  of  liis  own  will "  had  so  deter- 
mined. Probabl}^  no  advocate  of  revision  understands 
the  Confession  to  teach  this.  But  will  any  advocate  of  it 
say  that  the  number  of  the  reo^enerate  and  saved  can  be 
made  greater  or  less  by  the  decision  and  action  of  either 


22  THE  PROPOSED   EEVISION   OF 

the  unregenerate  world,  or  the  regenerate  church?  This 
would  contradict  the  statement  of  St.  John,  that  the  elect 
"sons  of  God  are  horn  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the 
flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God."  It  would  also 
contradict  the  corresponding  statement  in  the  Confession 
which  teaches  that  "in  effectual  calling  man  is  altogether 
passive,  until  being  quickened  and  renewed  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  he  is  thereby  enabled  to  answer  the  call,  and  to 
embrace  the  grace  offered  and  conveyed  by  it "  (Confession 
X.  2).  This  fourth  section  of  the  third  chapter  is  simply 
another  way  of  teaching  the  common  doctrine,  running 
all  through  the  Standards,  that  the  sinful  will  is  in  hond- 
age  to  sin,  and  cannot  regenerate  itself,  and  that  conse- 
quently the  number  of  the  regenerate  depends  wholly 
upon  the  will  and  decision  of  God. 

3.  Confession  x.  4  asserts  that  "  men  not  professing  the 
Christian  religion  cannot  be  saved  in  any  other  way  what- 
soever, be  they  never  so  diligent  to  frame  their  lives  ac- 
cording to  the  light  of  nature,  and  the  law  of  that  relig- 
ion they  do  profess."  This  is  alleged  to  be  erroneous 
by  an  advocate  of  revision,  because  "  every  promise  and 
every  warning  of  God  is  addressed  to  man  as  a  free  agent, 
and  not  as  one  who  cannot  be  saved." 

Who  are  the  persons  "  not  professing  the  Christian  re- 
ligion ?  "  They  are  those  who  7'eject  it,  either  formally, 
or  in  their  spirit  and  disposition.  The  class  here  spoken 
of  are  the  legalists  of  every  variety,  who  repudiate  salva- 
tion through  Christ's  blood  and  righteousness,  and  rely 
upon  "diligently  framing  their  lives  according  to  the  light 
of  nature,  and  the  law  of  that  religion  which  they  do  pro- 
fess"— which  is  some  other  than  "the  Christian  religion," 
which  they  do  not  "  profess,"  but  contemn.  The  Chris- 
tian religion  is  evangelical  religion,  and  this  they  dislike. 
They  expect  to  be  saved  by  morality  and  personal  virtue. 


THE  WEST3IINSTER   STANDARDS.  23 

and  not  by  faitli  in  the  vicarious    atonement  of  Jesus 
Christ. 

The  doctrine  tlien,  in  this  section  is,  in  brief,  that  no 
man  can  be  saved  by  good  works ;  by  any  endeavors  how- 
ever "  diligent  "  to  obey  tlie  wu-itten  law  of  the  decalogue, 
as  the  Cliristian  legalist  does,  or  tlie  unwritten  law  of 
conscience,  as  the  heathen  legalist  does.  Kow  concern- 
ing this  class  of  persons  St.  Paul  explicitly  says  that 
*'  they  cannot  be  saved."  ''  By  the  deeds  of  the  law  shall 
no  flesh  be  justified."  St.  Peter  says  the  same.  "There 
is  no  other  name  under  heaven  given  among  men,  where- 
by we  must  be  saved." 

Therejis  notjiingJii_tliis_section  that  denies  the.  pofisi-^.  ^^ 
bility  of  the  salvation  of  any  sinner  on  earth  who  feels  '  ,/ 
his  jin,  and  trusts  in  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  in  case  he  ^ 
has  heard  of  it,  or  would  ix'^'^i  in  it  if  he  should  hear  of 
it.  It  does  not  teach  that  no  heathen  is  or  can  be  saved. 
This  fourth  section,  so  often  misundei'stood  and  misrepre- 
sented, is  aimed  at  the  self-righteous  moralist,  whether  in 
Christendom  or  Heathendom,  who  has  no  sorrow  for  sin, 
feels  no  need  of  God's  mercy  as  manifested  in  Christ,  and 
has  no  disposition  to  cast  himself  upon  it,  but  claims  the 
rewards  of  eternity  on  the  ground  of  personal  character 
and  obedience  to  "the  lio-ht  of  nature"  and  the  maxims 
of  morality.  It  is  only  a  bold  and  strong  assertion  of 
the  great  truth,  that  no  sinner  can  Jbe  saved  by  his  most 
strenuous  endeavors  to  keep  the  moral  law.  It  is  not 
strange,  therefoi-e,  that  this  section  closes  with  the  affir- 
mation that  "  to  assert  and  maintain  the  contrary  is  very 
pernicious  and  to  be  detested." 

If  this  is  the  correct  explanation  of  these  three  sections 
of  the  Confession,  it  is  evident  that  they  neither  teach 
nor  imply  error,  and  therefore  do  not  need  any  revision. 


24  THE  PKOPOSED   EEVISIOJS^   OF 


lY. 

THE  WESTMINSTER    STANDARDS   AND    THE    UNIVERSAL 
OFFER   OF   MERCY.  1 

The  Westminster  Standards  are  now  meeting  an  attack 
from  some  who  liave  adopted  them  as  their  religious 
creed.  Formerly  the  onset  came  from  the  enemy  on  tlie 
outside,  now  it  comes  from  within  the  Church.  When  so 
many  presbyterians  are  objecting  to  the.  Confession  as 
containing  '•  offensive  articles  that  wound  the  consciences 
of  tens  of  thousands  of  loyal  and  orthodox  presbyterians," 
it  is  proper  for  an  ordinary  presbyterian  to  say  a  good 
word  for  the  time-honored  symbol  which  has  been  sub- 
scribed by  the  present  generation  of  ministers  and  elders, 
and  was  dear  to  all  the  former  generations.  May  it  not 
be  that  these  "  offensive  articles  "  are  not  in  the  Stand- 
ards, and  that  the  advocates  of  revision,  in  order  to  find  a 
sufficient  reason  for  their  project,  are  inventing  and  fight- 
ing men  of  straw  ?  Let  us  look  at  one  of  these  alleged 
offences. 

It  is  strenuously  contended  that  the  Standards  contain 
no  declaration  of  the  love  of  God  towards  all  men,  but 
limit  it  to  the  elect ;  that  they  make  no  universal  offer  of 
salvation,  but  confine  it  to  a  part  of  mankind. 

The  following  declaration  is  found  in  Confession  ii.  1. 
"  There  is  but  one  only  living  and  true  God,  who  is  most 
loving,    gracious,    merciful,    long-suffering,    abundant    iu 

*  New  York  Observer,  November  14,  1889. 


THE   WESTMINSTER   STANDARDS.  25 

goodness  and  truth,  forgiving  iniquity,  transgression  and 
sin,  tlie  re  warder  of  them  that  diligently  seek  him."  Of 
whom  speaketh  the  Confession  this  ?  of  the  God  of  the 
elect  only  ?  or  of  the  God  of  every  man  ?  Is  he  the  God 
of  the  elect  only  ?  Is  he  not  also  of  the  non-elect  ?  Is 
this  description  of  the  gracious  nature  and  attributes  of 
God  intended  to  be  restricted  to  a  part  of  mankind  ?  Is 
not  God  as  thus  delineated  the  Creator  and  Father  of 
every  man  without  exception  ?  Can  it  be  supposed  that 
the  authors  of  this  statement  meant  to  be  understood  to 
say  that  God  is  not  such  a  being  for  all  men,  but  only  for 
some  ?  If  this  section  does  not  teach  the  unlimited  love 
and  compassion  of  God  towards  all  men  as  men,  as  his 
creatures,  it  teaches  nothing. 

The  following  declaration  is  found  in  Confession  xv.  1, 
Larger  Catechism,  159.  ''  Hepentance  nnto  life  is  an 
evangelical  grace,  the  doctrine  whereof  is  to  be  preached 
in  season  and  out  of  season  by  every  minister  of  the  gos- 
pel, as  well  as  that  of  faith  in  Christ."  This  certainly 
teaches  that  faith  and  repentance  are  the  duty  of  all  men, 
not  of  some  only.  No  one  contends  that  the  Confession 
teaches  that  God  has  given  a  limited  command  to  repent. 
*'  God  commandetli  all  men  everywhere  to  repent."  But 
liow  could  he  give  such  a  universal  command  to  all  sin- 
ners if  he  is  not  willing  to  pardon  all  sinners  ?  if  his 
benevolent  love  is  confined  to  some  sinners  in  particular  ? 
How  could  our  Lord  command  his  ministers  to  preach  the 
doctrine  of  faith  and  repentance  to  "  every  creature,"  if 
he  does  not  desire  that  every  one  of  them  would  believe 
and  repent  ?  And  how  can  he  desire  this  if  he  does  not 
feel  infinite  love  for  the  souls  of  all  ?  When  the  Confes- 
sion teaches  the  duty  of  universal  faith  and  repentance,  it 
teaches  by  necessary  inference  the  doctrine  of  God's  uni- 
versal compassion  and  readiness  to  forgive.     And  it  also 


26  THE   PROPOSED   REVISIOIi   OF 

teaches  in  the  same  inferential  way,  that  the  sacrifice  of 
Christ  for  sin  is  ample  for  the  forgiveness  of  every  man. 
To  preach  the  doty  of  immediate  belief  on  the  Lord  Jesns 
Christ  as  obligatory  npon  every  man,  in  connection  witli 
the  doctrine  imputed  to  the  Confession  by  the  reviser, 
that  God  feels  compassion  for  only  the  elect,  and  that 
Christ's  sacrifice  is  not  sufficient  for  all,  would  be  self- 
contradictory.  The  two  things  cannot  be  put  together. 
The  reviser  misunderstands  the  Standards,  and  reads  into 
them  a  false  doctrine  that  is  not  there. 

Confession  xv.  5,  6,  declares  that  "  it  is  every  man's 
duty  to  endeavor  to  repent  of  his  particular  sins  particu- 
larly. Every  man  is  bound  to  make  private  confession  of 
his  sins  to  God,  praying  for  the  pardon  thereof,  upon 
which,  and  the  forsaking  of  them,  he  sliall  find  mercy." 
How  shall  every  such  man  find  mercy,  if  the  reviser's 
understanding  of  the  Confession  is  correct  ?  if  it  teaches 
that  God's  love  for  sinners  is  limited  to  the  elect,  and 
that  Christ's  sacrifice  is  not  sufficient  for  the  sins  of  all  ? 
According  to  the  revised  version,  the  meaning  of  the 
Westminster  divines  in  this  section  is,  that  some  men 
who  "pray  for  pardon  and  forsake  sin"  shall  "find 
mercy,"  and  some  shall  not. 

Larger  Catechism,  160,  declares  that  "  it  is  required  of 
those  that  hear  the  word  preached,  that  they  attend  upon 
it  with  diligence,  preparation  and  prayer ;  receive  the 
truth  in  faith,  love,  meekness  and  readiness  of  mind,  as 
the  word  of  God  ;  hide  it  in  their  hearts,  and  bring  forth 
the  fruit  of  it  in  their  lives,"  "VYould  God  require  all  this 
from  every  hearer  of  the  word,  if  he  were  not  kindly 
disposed  towards  him?  if  he  did  not  love  and  pity  his 
immortal  soul,  and  desire  its  salvation  ?  Does  not  this 
declaration  mean  that  God  will  encourage,  assist,  and 
bless  every  hearer  of  the  word  without  exception  who 


THE   WESTMINSTER   STANDARDS.  27 

does  the  tilings  mentioned  ?  What  shadow  of  reason 
is  there  for  alleging  that  it  means  that  God  will  help 
and  bless  some  of  these  hearej-s,  and  some  he  will  not  ? 
But  in  order  to  make  ont  that  the  section  does  not  teach 
the  nniversal  oifer  of  mercy,  this  must  be  the  allega- 
tion. 

Larger  Catechism,  95,  declares  that  "  the  moral  law  is 
of  use  to  all  men,  to  inform  them  of  the  holy  natnre  and 
will  of  God ;  to  convince  them  of  their  disability  to  keep 
it,  and  of  the  sinf  id  pollution  of  their  nature  ;  to  humble 
them  in  the  sense  of  sin  and  misery,  and  tliereby  help 
them  to  a  clearer  sight  of  the  need  they  have  of  Christ, 
and  of  the  perfection  of  his  obedience."  But  what  is  the 
use  of  showing  every  man  his  need  of  Christ,  if  Christ's 
sacrifice  is  not  sufficient  for  every  man  ?  What  reason  is 
there  for  convincing  every  man  of  the  pollution  of  his 
nature,  and  humbling  him  for  it,  unless  God  is  for  every 
man  "  most  loving,  gracious,  merciful,  long-suffering, 
forgiving  iniquity,  transgression  and  sin  ?  "  The  doctrine 
taught  in  this  section,  that  all  men  are  to  be  convicted  of 
sin,  like  the  doctrine  that  all  men  are  to  repent  and  to 
pray,  supposes  that  God  sustains  a  common  benevolent 
and  merciful  relation  to  them  all. 

Confession  xxi.  3,  declares  that  "prayer  with  thanks- 
giving, being  one  special  part  of  religious  worship,  is  re- 
quired by  God  of  all  men."'  How  could  God  require 
prayer  from  every  man,  if  he  were  not  disposed  to  hear 
the  prayer  of  every  man  ?  And  does  not  this  imply  that 
he  loves  the  soul  of  every  man  ?  The  duty  of  prayer  sup- 
poses a  corresponding  kind  and  gracious  feeling  in  God 
that  prompts  him  to  answer  it  ;  that  ^'  he  is  the  hearer  of 
prayer,  and  that  unto  him  all  flesh  should  come."  In 
order  to  make  out  his  "offensive  doctrine,"  the  reviser 
must  explain  this  section  by  appending  to  it:  "Though 


28  THE  PROPOSED   REVISION   OF 

God  requires  prayer  from  all  men,  he  is  the  hearer  of 
prayer  for  only  the  elect." 

Confession  vii.  3,  declares  that  "  man  by  his  fall  hav- 
ing made  himself  incapable  of  life  by  that  (legal)  cove- 
nant, the  Lord  was  pleased  to  make  a  second,  commonly 
called  the  covenant  of  grace:  wherein  he  freely  offered  to 
sinners  life  and  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ,  requiring  of 
them  faith  in  him,  tliat  they  may  be  saved,  and  promising 
to  give  imto  all  those  that  are  ordained  unto  life,  his  Holy 
Spirit,  to  make  them  willing  and  able  to  believe."  Two 
distinct  and  different  things  are  mentioned  here:  (a)  an 
offer  of  salvation  ;  (b)  a  promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
make  the  unwilling  sinner  wilHng  to  accept  it.  The  num- 
ber of  those  to  whom  the  offer  of  salvation  is  made  is  un- 
limited ;  of  those  to  whom  the  promise  of.  the  Spirit  to 
"make  them  willing"  is  n)ade,  is  limited  by  '^ ordination 
to  life"  or  election.  It  is  clear  that  God  may  desire  that 
to  be  done  by  man  under  the  influence  of  his  common 
grace  in  the  common  call,  which  he  may  not  decide  and 
purpose  to  raahe  him  do  by  the  operation  of  his  special 
grace  in  the  effectual  call.  His  desire  that  sinners  would 
hear  his  universal  call  to  repentance  may  be,  and  is  un- 
limited ;  but  his  purpose  to  overcome  their  unwillingness 
and  incline  them  to  repentance  may  be,  and  is  limited. 
God  offers  Christ's  sacrifice  to  every  man,  without  excep- 
tion, and  assures  him  that  if  he  will  trust  in  it  he  shall  be 
saved,  and  gives  him  common  grace  to  help  and  encour- 
age him  to  believe.  This  is  a  proof  that  God  loves  his  soul 
and  desires  its  salvation.  But  God  does  not,  in  addition 
to  this  universal  offer  of  mercy,  promise  to  overcome  every 
man's  aversion  to  believe  and  repent  and  his  resistance 
of  common  grace.  Election  and  preterition  have  no  ref- 
erence to  the  offer  of  salvation  or  to  common  grace.  They 
relate  only  to  special  grace  and  the  effectual  application  of 


THE  wp:stminster  standards.  29 

Christ's  sacrifice.  The  universal  offer  of  mercy  taught  in 
this  section  evinces  the  universality  of  God's  compassion 
towards  sinners. 

Larger  Catechism,  63,  declares  that ''  tlie  ministry  oli  the 
gospel  testifies  that  whosoever  believes  hi  Christ  shall  be 
saved,  and  excludes  none  that  will  come  unto  him."  The 
reference  here  is  not  to  the  members  of  the  visible  Church, 
as  one  reviser  contends  who  denies  that  the  universal  offer 
is  in  this  section,  because  the  persons  spoken  of  are  those 
who  have  not  yet  believed  in  Christ,  and  have  not  yet 
come  to  him.  The  motive  is  held  out  to  such  persons, 
that  if  they  loill  believe  and  come,  they  shall  be  saved  by 
the  infinite  and  universal  mercy  of  God  which  "excludes 
none  that  will  come  unto  him." 

With  what  show  of  reason  can  it  be  said  that  a  symbol 
containing  such  declarations  as  these  respecting  the  nature 
and  attributes  of  God,  his  requirement  that  every  man 
confess  sin  to  him,  repent  of  it,  pray  for  its  forgiveness 
and  trust  in  his  mercy,  contains  no  announcement  of  his 
infinite  love  and  compassion  ?  This  great  and  blessed 
truth  is  worked  and  woven  all  throuo-h  the  Standards,  as 
the  doctrines  of  the  Divine  existence  and  the  immortality 
of  the  soul  are  through  the  Bible.  The  Bible  is  nonsense 
without  these  latter,  and  the  Confession  is  nonsense  witli- 
out  the  formei". 

The  Westminster  creed  is  being  wounded  in  the  house 
of  its  friends.  To  a  spectator  it  appears  amazing  that  so 
many  who  have  "received  and  accepted"  it  as  teaching 
"the  system  of  doctrine  contained  in  the  Scriptures" 
should  charge  so  many  and  so  great  errors  upon  it.  If  the 
Confession  and  Catechisms  really  are  what  they  have  been 
alleged  to  be,  during  the  last  six  months,  by  some  advo- 
cates of  revision,  they  ought  not  to  be  revised  at  all,  but 
to  be  repudiated. 


30  THE   PROPOSED    REVISION    OF 


y. 

THE  MEANING  AND  VALUE  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  DECREES.' 

The  proposal  to  revise  the  Westminster  Standards  lias 
bronglit  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Decrees  into  the  fore- 
ground. The  controversy  turns  upon  this  pivot.  Other 
features  come  in  incidentally,  but  this  is  capital  and  con- 
trolling. This  is  the  stone  of  stumbling  and  rock  of  of- 
fence. If  election  and  reprobation  were  not  in  the  Con- 
fession and  Catechism,  probably  the  fifteen  presbyteries 
would  not  have  overtured  the  Assembly.  It  is  for  this 
reason  that  we  purpose  to  discuss  the  Meaning  and  Value 
of  the  Doctrine  of  Decrees^  so  plainly  inculcated  in  the 
Scriptures,  and  from  them  introduced  into  the  Westmin- 
ster symbol.  We  are  certain  that  the  Biblical  truth  of 
the  sovereignty  of  God  in  the  salvation  of  sinners,  and  of 
his  just  liberty  to  determine  how  many  he  will  save  from 
their  sin,  and  how  many  he  will  leave  to  their  self-will  in 
sin,  is  greatly  misunderstood  by  some  who  profess  the 
Presbyterian  faith,  and  who  describe  it  in  much  the  same 
terms  with  the  anti-Calvinist,  and  inveigli  against  it  with 
something  of  the  same  bitterness.  Though  differing 
greatly  from  one  another  in  personal  feeling  and  attitude 
towards  the  Confession,  the  conservative  and  the  radical 
reviser  nevertheless  practically  meet  together  at  this  point, 
and  while  the  former  has  no  desire  to  make  any  changes 


^  By  permission,  from  the  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review,  Janu- 
ary, 1890. 


THE  WESTMINSTER  STANDARDS.  31 

in  the  doctrine  of  decrees  that  will  essentially  impair  the 
integrity  of  the  Calvinistic  system,  he  yet  unintentionally 
aids  the  radical  in  bringing  about  a  revolution  in  the  sen- 
timent and  creed  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  concerning 
one  of  the  most  distinctive  articles  of  its  belief.  Because 
revision,  be  it  conservative  or  radical,  contends  that  tJicre 
is  more  or  less  that  is  uii- Scriptural  in  the  tenets  of  elec- 
tion and  reprobation  as  they  are  now  formulated  in  the 
Standards,  and  that  they  are  bad  in  their  influence.  The 
amount  of  error  in  them,  and  the  degree  in  which  they 
are  injurious,  is  variously  stated  by  advocates  of  revision. 
But  the  general  opinion  of  this  class  is,  that  they  require 
more  or  less  amending  to  get  rid  of  certain  elements  that 
are  derogatory  to  the  character  of  God,  and  are  inconsist- 
ent with  the  Christian  redemption.  Anti-revision  denies 
this.  The  only  question  of  importance,  therefore,  in  this 
juncture,  is:  Kevision,  or  Nonrevision.  And  this,  as  we 
have  said,  turns  mainly  upon  the  third  chapter  of  the 
Confession,  entitled  "  Of  God's  Eternal  Decree,"  together 
with  the  kindred  declarations  growing  out  of  this,  in  other 
parts  of  the  Standards.  It  will  therefore  be  our  aim  to 
show  that  the  doctrine  of  decrees,  as  it  is  found  in  the 
"Westminster  Standards,  is  neither  un-Scriptural  nor  erro- 
neous ;  and  that  it  is  a  highly  useful  and  edifying  doctrine 
in  the  formation  of  the  Christian  character.  We  heartily 
adopt  the  affirmation  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  that 
"  the  godly  consideration  of  predestination,  and  our  elec- 
tion in  Christ,  is  full  of  sweet,  pleasant,  and  unspeakable 
comfort  to  godly  persons,  and  such  as  feel  in  themselves 
the  workings  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  mortifying  the  works 
of  the  flesh  and  their  earthly  members,  and  drawing  up 
their  minds  to  high  and  heavenly  things,  as  well  because 
it  doth  greatly  establish  and  confirm  their  faith,  and  fer- 
vently kindle  their  love  tov/ards  God." 


32  THE   PROPOSED   EEVISION   OF 

In  carrying  out  our  purpose,  we  shall  mention  certain 
characteristics  of  the  Westminster  doctrine  that  are  both 
Scriptural  and  rational,  and  of  great  value  both  specula- 
tively in  constructing  the  Christian  system,  and  practically 
in  forming  the  Christian  experience. 

1.  The  first  characteristic  of  the  Confessional  statement 
that  we  mention  is,  that  it  hrings  sin  vjithin  the  scojye^ 
and  under  the  control  of  the  Divine  decree.  Sin  is  one 
of  the  " whatsoevers "  that  have  "come  to  pass,"  all  of 
which  are  "  ordained."  Some  would  have  the  doctrine 
that  sin  is  decreed  stricken  from  the  Confession,  because 
in  their  view  it  makes  God  the  author  of  sin.  The  Con- 
fession denies  this  in  its  assertion  that  by  the  Divine  de- 
cree "violence  is  not  offered  to  the  will  of  the  creatui-e, 
nor  is  the  liberty  of  second  causes  taken,  away,  but  rather 
established."  In  so  saying,  the  authors  had  in  mind  the 
common  distinction  recognized  in  Calvinistic  creeds  and 
systems,  between  the  efficacious  and  the  permissive  decree, 
though  they  do  not  use  the  terms  here.  The  latter,  like 
the  former,  makes  an  event  certain,  but  by  a  different 
mode  from  that  of  the  former.  "When  God  executes  his 
decree  that  Saul  of  Tarsus  shall  be  ''  a  vessel  of  mercy," 
he  works  efficaciously  within  him  by  his  Holy  Spirit  "to 
will  and  to  do."  When  God  executes  his  decree  that  Ju- 
das Iscariot  shall  be  "  a  vessel  of  wrath  fitted  for  destruc- 
tion," he  does  not  work  efficaciously  within  him  "  to  will 
and  to  do,"  but  permissively  in  the  way  of  allowing  him 
to  have  his  own  wicked  will.  He  decides  not  to  restrain 
him  or  to  regenerate  him,  but  to  leave  him  to  his  own  ob- 
stinate and  rebellious  inclination  and  purpose;  and  accord- 
ingly "  the  Son  of  man  goeth  as  it  was  determined,  but 
woe  unto  that  man  by  whom  he  is  betrayed"  (Luke  22  : 
22;  Acts  2:  23).  The  two  Divine  methods  in  the  two 
cases  are  plainly  different,  but  the  perdition  of  Judas  was 


THE  WESTMINSTER   STANDARDS.  33 

as  mucli  foreordained  and  free  from  chance,  as  tlic  con- 
version of  Sanl.  Man's  inability  to  explain  how  God  can 
make  sin  certain,  bnt  not  compulsory,  by  a. permissive  de- 
cree, is  no  reason  for  denying  that  he  can  do  it  or  that  he 
has  done  it. 

It  is  sometimes  argued  that  the  Confession  excludes  the 
tenet  of  the  permissive  decree,  by  its  declaration  that  the 
"  providence  of  God  extendeth  itself  even  to  the  first  fall, 
and  all  other  sins  of  angels  and  men,  and  that  not  hy  a 
'bare  j>erm.lsslon  "  (Conf .  v.  4).  The  '•  bare  permission  " 
which  the  Assembly  rejects  here  is  that  of  the  Tridentine 
theologians,  who  asserted  that  sin  arises  from  the  "  mere 
permission  "  of  God.  The  Ileformed  theologians  under- 
stood this  to  mean,  that  in  respect  to  the  fall  of  angels  and 
men  God  is  an  idle  and  helpless  spectator  (deo  otioso 
spectante),  and  that  sin  came  into  the  universe  without 
any  positive  decision  and piirj?ose  on  his  part.  This  kind 
of  "permission"  implies  that  God  could  not  haye  j7/*e- 
veiited  sin  had  he  so  decided,  and  is  really  no  permission 
at  all ;  because  no  one  can  properly  be  said  to  permit  what 
lie  cannot  prevent.  In  order  to  exclude  this  view  of 
"  permission,"  the  Assembly  assert  "  suck  [a  permission] 
as  hath  joined  with  it  a  most  holy,  wise,  and  powerful 
bounding  and  otherwise  ordering  and  governi7ig  of  [the 
sins  of  angels  and  men],  in  a  manifold  dispensation,  to 
his  own  holy  ends  ;  yet  so  as  the  siorfuhiess  thereof  ]:n'o- 
ceedeth  only  from  the  creature,  not  from  God,  who  neither 
is  nor  can  he  the  author  of  sin.''''  This  last  clause  declares 
that  God's  relation  to  the  sin  which  he  decrees,  is  not  that 
of  efficiency,  but  permission.  For  if  God  worked  directly 
and  efficaciously  in  angel  or  man  "  to  will,"  when  he  wills 
wickedly,  the  "  sinfulness  of  sin  "  would  "  proceed  from 
God,"  and  God  would  be  "  the  author  of  sin."  The  per- 
missive decree  is  taught  also  in  Larger  Catechism,  19. 


Gi  THE   PROPOSED    REVISION    OF 

'•  God  by  his  providence  jyermiUed  some  of  tlie  angels, 
wilfully  and  irrecoverably,  to  fall  into  sin  and  damnation, 
limiting  and  ordering  that,  and  all  their  sins,  to  his  own 
glory." 

The  permissive  decree  is  supported  by  Scripture,  in  the 
statement  that  God  "  in  times  past  suffered  {elacre)  all  na- 
tions to  walk  in  their  own  ways "  (Acts  14  :  16) ;  that 
"  the  times  of  this  ignorance  God  overlooked  "  {vTrepiScov) 
(Acts  IT:  30);  that  God  "gave  rebellious  Israel  their 
own  desire  (Psalm  Y8  :  29) ;  that  "  he  gave  them  their 
request "  (Psalm  106  :  15).  This  phraseology  is  never 
employed  when  holiness  is  spoken  of.  The  Bible  never 
says  that  God  permits  man  to  be  holy,  or  to  act  right- 
eously. He  efficaciously  influences  and  actuates  him  to 
this.  Accordingly  the  other  Reformed  creeds,  like  the 
Westminster,  mark  the  difference  between  God's  relation 
to  holiness  and  sin.  The  Second  Helvetic,  Ch.  viii.,  says  : 
"  Quotiescunque  Deus  aliquid  mali  in  Scriptura  facere 
dicitur  atqne  videtur,  non  ideo  dicitur,  quod  liomo  malum 
lion  faciat,  sed  quod  Deus  fieri  sinat  et  noji  prohiheat, 
justo  suo  judicio,  qui  prohibere  potuisset,  si  voluisset." 
The  Belgic  Confession,  Art.  13,  assei-ts  that  God's  "  power 
and  goodness  are  so  great  and  incomprehensible,  that  he 
orders  and  executes  his  work  in  the  most  excellent  and 
just  manner  even  when  the  devil  and  wicked  men  act  un- 
justly. We  are  persuaded  that  he  so  restrains  the  devil 
and  all  our  enemies  that  without  his  will  and  permission 
they  cannot  hurt  us."  The  Dort  Canons,  i,  15,  teach  that 
"God,  out  of  his  sovereign,  most  just,  and  unchangeable 
good  pleasure  hath  decreed  to  leave  some  men  in  the  com- 
mon misery  into  which  they  have  wilfully  plunged  them- 
selves, and  not  to  bestow  upon  them  saving  faith  and  the 
grace  of  conversion,  hwi permitting  them  in  his  just  judg- 
ment to  follow  their  own  way,  at  last,  for  the  declaration 


\ 


THE   WESTMINSTER   STANDARDS.  35 

of  his  justice,  to  condeiim  and  pun  is!  i  them  forever,  not 
only  on  account  of  their  unbelief,  but  also  for  all  their 
other  sins." 

And  here  is  the  phace  to  notice  the  error  of  those  who 
represent  supralapsarianisni  as  differing  from  infralapsa- 
rianisni  by  referring  sin  to  the  efficacious  decree,  thereby 
making  God  the  author  of  it.  Dr.  Schaff,  for  example, 
asserts  that  "  Calvin  carried  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine 
decrees  beyond  the  Angustinian  infralapsarianism,  which 
makes  the  fall  of  Adam  the  object  of  a  permissive  or  pas- 
sive decree,  to  the  very  verge  of  supralapsarianism,  which 
traces  even  the  first  sin  to  an  efficient  or  positive  decree  " 
(Creeds,  i.  453).  But  both  schemes  alike  refer  sin  to  the 
permissive  decree,  and  both  alike  deny  that  God  is  the 
author  of  sin.  Supralapsarians  like  Beza  and  Gomar  re- 
pel this  charge,  which  anti-Calvinists  made  against  both 
divisions  of  the  Calvinists.  Brandt,  who  was  on  the  Ar- 
minian  side,  so  understood  Gomar.  In  describing  the 
difference  between  Arminius  and  Gomar,  he  says  of  the 
latter :  "  Gomarus  maintained  tliat  it  was  appointed  by  an 
eternal  decree  of  God,  who  among  mankind  should  be 
saved,  and  who  should  be  damned.  From  whence  it  re- 
sulted that  some  men  should  be  drawn  to  righteousness, 
and  being  drawn  were  preserved  from  falling;  but  that 
God  suffered  all  the  rest  to  remain  in  the  common  corrup- 
tion of  human  nature,  and  in  their  own  iniquities  "  (Re- 
formation in  the  Low  Countries,  Book  xviii.).  Calvin, 
Inst.  III.  xxii.,  says  that  "  man  falls  according  to  the  ap- 
pointment of  Divine  providence,  but  falls  by  his  own 
fault."  ^     The  difference  between  them  relates  to  an  alto- 

^  Sliedd :  Dogmatic  Theology,  i.  409  (Xote),  A  remark  is  in  place 
here,  upon  the  often  cited  "decretum  horribile  "  of  Calvin.  The  Di- 
vine sovereignty  in  the  salvation  of  sinners  when  properly  viewed,  in- 
spires a  solemn  and  religious  aice  before  that  Infinite  Being  who,  in  the 


36  THE  PROPOSED   REVISION   OF 

gethei*  different  point :  namely,  the  order  in  which  the 
decrees  of  election  and  reprobation  stand  to  that  of  crea- 
tion. Tlie  supralapsarian  asserts  that  in  the  logical  order 
of  nature  (not  of  time,  for  all  the  decrees  are  eternal),  the 
decree  to  elect  and  reprobate  certain  men  is  before  (supra) 
the  decree  to  create  them  ;  the  infralapsarian,  that  it  is 
after  (infra).  The  former  contends  that  God  hegins  by 
electing  some  men  and  reprobating  others,  and  in  order  to 
execute  these  two  decrees  creates  man  and  permits  (not 
efficiently  causes)  the  fall.  The  infralapsarian  contends 
that  God  begins  by  creating  man  and  permitting  (not 
causing)  the  fall,  and  then  out  of  this  fallen  and  guilty 
race  elects  some  to  life,  and  leaves  others  to  their  volun- 
tary sin  and  its  just  penalty.  The  supralapsarian  order  is 
liable  to  the  charge  that  "  God  creates  some  men  in  order 
to  damn  them,"  because  creation  follows  from  reprobation. 
The  infralapsarian  order  is  not  liable  to  this  charge,  be- 
cause creation  does  not  follow  from  reprobation,  but  pre- 
cedes it.'     The  Westminster  Assembly,  in  common  with 

language  of  Elihu,  "  giveth  not  account  of  any  of  his  matters "  (Jol> 
33  :  13).  This  is  the  meaning  of  Calvin's  "  decretum  quidem  horribile 
fateor  "  (Inst.  III.  xxiii.  7).  Those  who  quote  this  in  disparagement  of 
the  doctrine  of  predestination,  suppose  that  he  used  "horrible"  in  the 
modern  vulgar  sense  of  *'  hateful  "  and  "  repulsive,"  as  when  persons 
speak  of  a  "horrible  stench,"  or  an  "awful  noise."  Of  course  he 
could  not  have  intended  to  pour  contempt  upon  what  he  believed  to  be 
a  truth  of  revelation,  by  employing  the  word  in  this  popular  and  some- 
what slangy  signification.  Calvin  was  a  highly  educated  classical 
scholar,  and  his  Latin  is  as  accurate  and  elegant  as  any  since  the  days 
of  Cicero  and  Virgil.  In  the  classical  writers,  "horror  "  sometimes  sig- 
nifies awe  and  veneration.  Lucretius,  for  example,  describes  the  wor- 
ship of  the  gods  as  originating  in  the  "  mortalibus  insitus  horror''''  (Do 
Natura,  v,  1164).  The  feeling  of  reverential  fear  is  expressed  in 
Jacob's  words,  "  How  dreadful  is  this  place  !  "  (Gen.  28  :17).  In  this 
sense  of  the  word,  the  doctrine  of  predestination  might  be  called  "a 
dreadful  decree,"  without  disparaging  it  in  the  least. 

*  The  Arminian  Remonstrants  stated  the  difference  between  the  two 


THE    WESTMINSTER   STANDARDS.  37 

the  Calvinistic  creeds  previously  made,  adopted  the  infra- 
lapsariaii  order,  though  some  theologians,  like  the  elder 
Hodge,  find  a  concession  to  the  supralapsarians  in  some  of 
their  phraseology. 

Tiie  doctrine  of  the  permissive  decree  has  great  value 
in  two  respects:  {a)  In  taking  sin  out  of  the  sphere  of  / 
chance,     {b)  In   explaining    the   tenet  of  preterition,  or 
"  foreordination  to  everlastine:  death." 

First,  by  the  permissive  deci-ee,  sin  is  brought  within 
the  Divine  plan  of  the  universe,  and  under  the  Divine 
control.  Whatever  is  undecreed  must  be  by  hap-hazard 
and  accident.  If  sin  does  not  occur  by  the  Divine  pur- 
pose and  permission,  it  occurs  by  chance.  And  if  sin  oc- 
curs by  chance,  the  deity,  as  in  the  ancient  pagan  theolo- 
gies, is  limited  and  hampered  by  it.  He  is  not  "  God 
over  all."  Dualism  is  introduced  into  the  theory  of  the 
universe.  Evil  is  an  independent  and  uncontrollable  prin- 
ciple. God  governs  only  in  part.  Sin  with  all  its  effects 
is  beyond  his  sw^ay.  This  dualism  God  condemns  as  er- 
ror, in  his  words  to  Cyrus  by  Isaiah,  "  I  make  peace  and 
create  evil ;  "  and  in  the  words  of  Proverbs  16  :  4,  "  The 
Lord  hath  made  all  things  for  himself ;  yea,  even  the 
wicked  for  the  day  of  evil."  '^  We  believe,"  says  the  Eel- 
divisions  of  Calvinists  as  follows:  "Our  opponents  teach,  First,  that 
God,  as  some  [i  e.,  supralapsarians]  assert,  has  ordained  by  an  eternal 
and  irresistible  decree  some  from  among  men,  whom  he  does  not  con- 
sider as  created  much  less  as  fallen,  to  eternal  life,  and  some  to  ever- 
lasting perdition,  without  any  regard  to  their  obedience  or  disobedience, 
in  order  to  exert  both  his  justice  and  his  mercy.  Secondly,  that  God, 
as  others  [i.e.,  infralapsarians]  teach,  considers  mankind  not  only  as 
created  hwt  fallen  in  Adam,  and  consequently  as  obnoxious  to  the  curse  ; 
from  which  fall  and  destruction  he  has  determined  to  release  some,  and 
save  them  as  instances  of  his  mercy,  and  to  leave  others  under  the 
curse  for  examples  of  his  justice,  without  any  regard  to  belief  or  unbe- 
lief" (Brandt:  Reformation  in  the  Low  Countries,  Book  xix.). 


38  THE   PKOPOSED    REVISION    OF 

gic  Confession,  Art.  13,  "  that  God  after  lie  had  created 
all  things  did  not  forsake  them,  or  give  them  up  to  for- 
tune or  chance,  but  that  he  rules  and  governs  them  ac- 
cording to  his  holy  will,  so  that  nothing  happens  in  this 
world  without  his  appointment ;  nevertheless,  God  neither 
is  the  author  of,  nor  can  be  charged  with,  the  sins  which 
are  committed." 

Secondly,  by  the  permissive  decree,  the  preterition  of 
some  sinners  and  thereby  their  "  foreordination  to  ever- 
lasting death  "  is  shown  to  be  rational  as  well  as  Scriptu- 
ral, because  God,  while  decreeing  the  destiny  of  the  non- 
elect,  is  not  the  author  of  his  sin  or  of  his  perdition. 
Preterition  is  a  branch  of  the  permissive  decree,  and 
stands  or  falls  with  it.  Whoever  would  strike  the  doc- 
trine of  preterition  from  the  Standards,  -to  be  consistent 
must  strike  out  the  general  doctrine  that  sin  is  decreed. 
If  God  could  permissively  decree  the  fall  of  Adam  and 
his  posterity  without  being  the  cause  and  author  of  it,  he 
can  also  permissively  decree  the  eternal  death  of  an  in- 
dividual sinner  without  being  the  cause  and  author  of  it. 
In  preterition,  God  repeats,  in  respect  to  an  individual, 
the  act  which  he  performed  in  respect  to  the  race.  Pie 
permitted  the  whole  human  species  to  fall  in  Adam  in 
such  a  manner  that  they  were  responsible  and  guilty  for 
the  fall,  and  he  permits  an  individual  of  the  species  to 
remain  a  sinner  and  to  be  lost  by  sin,  in  such  a  manner 
that  the  sinner  is  responsible  and  guilty  for  this. 

The  Westminster  Standards,  in  common  with  the  Cal- 
vinistic  creeds  generally,  begin  w^ith  affirming  the  univer- 
sal sovereignty  of  God  over  his  entire  universe  :  over 
heaven,  earth,  and  hell ;  and  comprehend  all  beings  and 
all  events  under  his  dominion.  IN'othing  comes  to  pass 
contrary  to  his  decree.  E'othing  happens  by  chance. 
Even  moral  evil,  which  he  abhors  and  forbids,  occurs  by 


THE    Vv'i:8T31INSTEK   STANDARDS.  39 

"  the  determinate  counsel  and  foreknowledge  of  God  ; " 
and  yet  occurs  tJirougli  the  agency  of  the  unforced  and 
self-determining  will  of  man  as  the  efficient. 

AVhy  should  such  a  tenet  as  this,  taught  by  Scripture 
and  supported  by  reason,  be  sti-icken  out  of  tlie  Confes- 
sion ;  or  if  not  stricken  out,  so  minimized  as  to  declare 
that  God  decrees  holiness  but  not  sin,  elects  but  does  not 
pass  by  ?  On  the  contrary,  why  should  it  not  be  pro- 
claimed boldly  and  everywhere,  that  above  all  the  sin, 
and  the  misery  caused  by  sin,  in  this  world  of  mankind, 
there  sits  on  the  throne  a  wise,  benevolent,  and  omnipo- 
tent Sovereign  who  for  reasons  sufficient  in  his  view 
fcrmittecl^  but  did  not  cause  or  comjjel^  the  fall  of  angels 
and  men,  with  tJie  intention  of  guiding  the  issue  of  it  all 
to  an  ultimate  end  worthy  of  himself — namely,  the  mani- 
festation of  his  two  great  attributes  of  mercy  and  justice  : 
of  merc}^,  in  the  salvation  from  sin  of  ''  a  great  multitude 
whom  no  man  can  number  ; "  of  justice,  in  leaving  a 
m.ultitude  that  can  be  numbered  to  tlie  sin  which  they  love 
and  prefer,  and  its  righteous  punishment. 

2.  The  second  characteristic  of  the  Westminster  doc- 
trine of  decrees  is  tJie  miio7i  of  election  and  preterition. 
It  includes  both  tenets,  and  is  consistent  in  doinir  so.  Tlie 
discontent  with  the  Confession  is  greater  upon  this  point 
than  upon  the  first  that  we  have  mentioned.  Many  do 
not  object  to  what  the  Standaids  say  upon  the  abstract 
subject  of  the  Divine  decree,  who  particularly  dislike  its 
concrete  teaching  upon  election  and  preterition.  The  dis- 
crimination wdiich  the  Confession  makes  between  sinners  ; 
the  Divine  purpose  to  save  some  and  not  all ;  they  as- 
sert to  be  un-Biblical  and  unjust.  ''  The  foreordination 
of  some  men  to  everlasting  life,  and  of  others  to  everlast- 
ing death,  and  preterition  of  all  the  non-elect,  are  equally 
inconsistent  with  a  proper  conception  of  Divine  justice," 


40  THE   PKOPOSED    EEVISION    OF 

is  the  assertion  of  a  strenuous  advocate  of  revision.  Some 
vi'ould  strike  out  both  election  and  preterition  ;  others 
would  strike  out  preterition  and  retain  election.  We  shall 
endeavor  to  show  that  one  of  these  proposals  is  as  destruc- 
tive of  the  integrity  of  the  system  as  the  other ;  that  both 
tenets  must  stand,  or  both  must  go. 

That  individual  election  is  taught  in  the  Bible  is  very 
generally  conceded.  But  individual  preterition  is  taught 
with  equal  plainness.  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Saviour 
of  sinners,  is  as  explicit  upon  this  subject  as  he  is  upon 
that  of  endless  punishment.  Upon  two  occasions  (Matt. 
13  :  14,  15  ;  John  12 :  38-40),  he  .quotes  the  words  of 
God  to  Isaiah,  6  :  9,  10  :  "  Go  and  tell  this  people.  Hear 
ye  indeed,  but  understand  not ;  and  see  ye  indeed,  but 
perceive  not.  Make  the  heart  of  this  people  fat,  and 
make  their  ears  heavy,  and  shut  their  eyes ;  lest  they  see 
with  their  eyes,  and  hear  with  their  ears,  and  understand 
with  their  lieart,  and  convert,  and  be  healed."  The 
prophet  was  instructed  to  declare  the  preterition  of  a  part 
of  Israel,  and  our  Lord  endorses  the  doctrine.  And  he 
frequently  connects  the  voluntary  and  guilty  rejection  of 
liis  gracious  offer  of  mercy  with  the  eternal  purpose  and 
plan  of  God.  The  impenitence  of  Capernaum  and  of 
Chorazin  and  Bethsaida  was  guilty,  and  punishable  with 
a  punishment  greater  than  that  of  Sodom  ;  yet  these  sin- 
ners were  "  the  wise  and  prudent "  from  whom  the  "  Lord 
of  heaven  and  earth  "  had  "  hid  the  things "  of  salvation 
(Matt.  11  :  20-26).  "  Many,"  he  says,  "  are  called,  but 
few  are  chosen  "  (Matt.  22  :  14  ;  Luke  17  :  34-36).  "With 
grief  and  tears  over  the  hardness  of  heart  and  the  bitter 
enmity  of  the  Jerusalem  sinners,  he  at  the  same  time  de- 
clares their  reprobation  by  God.  ''  Upon  you  shall  come 
all  the  righteous  blood  shed  upon  earth,  from  the  blood  of 
righteous  Abel  unto  the  blood  of  Zacharias.     Behold  your 


THE  WESTMINSTER  STANDARDS.  41 

house  is  left  unto  you  desolate  "  (Matt.  23  :  35-38).  That 
the  Apostolical  Epistles  teach  pretention,  we  need  not 
stop  to  prove.  One  principal  objection  made  to  tlie  Paul- 
ine Christianity  by  its  opponents  is,  that  it  is  full  of  pre- 
destination both  to  holiness  and  sin.  The  Dort  Canons, 
I.  vi.,  enunciate  Paul's  doctrine  in  the  following  state- 
ment :  "  That  some  receive  the  gift  of  faith  from  God, 
and  others  do  not  receive  it,  proceeds  from  God's  eternal 
decree.  According  to  which  decree,  he  graciously  softens 
the  hearts  of  the  elect,  liowever  obstinate,  and  inclines 
them  to  believe ;  while  he  leaves  the  non-elect  in  his  just 
judgment  to  their  own  wickedness  and  obduracy."  "  Unto 
you,"  says  our  Lord,  "  it  is  given  to  know  the  mysteries 
of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven,  but  to  them  it  is  not  given  " 
(Matt.  13:11). 

JSTot  only  are  both  individual  election  and  preterition 
taught  in  Scripture,  but  both  are  necessary  in  a  creed 
in  order  to  self-consistence.  Preterition  is  the  contrary 
of  election,  and  one  of  two  contraries  necessarily  implies 
the  other.  Pight  implies  wrong ;  light  implies  dark- 
ness. 'No  one  would  contend  that  there  is  light  but 
not  darkness  ;  right  but  not  wrong.  And  no  one  should 
contend  that  there  is  an  election  of  individuals,  but  not  a 
pretention.^     It  is  impossible  to  think  of  individual  elec- 

'  The  qualifying  epitliet  "individual"  is  important  here;  because 
while  individual  electiou  implies  individual  preterition  as  its  contrary, 
classical  election  does  not.  If  a  whole  class  (say  dying  infants)  are 
elected,  no  individuals  of  it  are  passed  by.  The  true  contrary  to  clas- 
sical election  is  classical  preterition,  not  individual  preterition.  In  clas- 
sical election,  there  cannot  be  the  salvation  of  a  i:)art  and  perdition  of 
a  part,  as  there  can  be  in  individual  election.  The  whole  class  must 
either  be  elected,  or  else  the  whole  class  must  be  passed  by  ;  the  whole 
of  it  must  be  the  objects  of  mercy,  or  else  the  whole  of  it  must  be  the 
objects  of  justice.  All  must  be  saved,  or  else  all  must  be  lost.  No  dis- 
crimination is  possible  between  individuals,  as  is  the  case  in  individual 
election. 


42  THE  PROPOSED   REVISION   OF 

tion  alone  by  itself,  or  to  teach  it  alone  by  itself.  Indi- 
vidual election  implies  and  suggests  individual  reprobation. 
The  elect  himself  (that  is,  one  who  hopes  he  is  of  the 
elect)  sometimes  fears  that  he  is  one  of  the  non-elect.  St. 
Paul  kept  his  body  under,  lest  he  should  be  a  reprobate 
"  cast  away."  That  Christian  who  denies  the  doctrine  of 
pi-eteritiou,  and  does  not  sometimes  fear  that  God  may 
pass  him  by,  is  not  a  model  for  imperfectly  sanctified  men. 
If  God  does  not  elect  a  sinner,  he  must  of  course  pass  him 
by.  If  God  decides  not  to  convert  a  sinner  into  a 
saint,  he  must  of  course  decide  to  let  him  remain  a  sinner. 
If  God  does  not  purpose  to  make  Judas  Iscariot  "a  vessel 
of  mercy,"  he  must  of  course  purpose  to  leave  him  *'  a 
vessel  of  wrath."  Individual  election  without  its  anti- 
thetic preterition  is  only  one-half  of  the"  circle  of  Divine 
truth.  "When  God  operates  efficaciously  in  the  sinner's 
heart,  to  overcome  his  resistance  of  common  grace,  and 
his  enmity  to  the  law  of  God,  this  is  election.  When  God 
does  not  work  efficaciously,  but  permissively  leaves  the 
sinner  to  himself,  this  is  preterition.  And  he  must  do 
one  thing  or  the  other,  in  the  instance  of  every  sinner. 
And  he  must  purpose  to  do  one  thing  or  the  other,  in 
every  instance.  And  the  purpose  is  an  eternal  one.  Con- 
sequently to  affirm  in  a  creed  the  decree  of  individual 
election,  and  deny  that  of  preterition,  is  the  height  of  ab- 
surdity. 

Accordingly,  the  Reformed  creeds  contain  both  doc- 
trines ;  sometimes  both  of  them  verbally  expressed,  and 
sometimes  preterition  implied  from  election  verbally  ex- 
pressed. Both  doctrines  are  specified  in  the  following 
symbols  :  Second  Helvetic,  Galilean,  Belgic,  First  Scotch, 
Irish,  Lambeth,  Dort,  Westminster.  Election  alone  is 
specified  in  Augsburg,  First  Helvetic,  Heidelberg,  and 
Thirty-nine  Articles.     That  the  decree  of  individual  elec- 


THE   WEST]\[INSTER  STAXDAllDS.  43 

tion  necessarily  involves  the  antithetic  decree  of  individual 
preterition,  is  evinced  by  the  fact  that  Ursinns,  one  of  the 
authors,  and  the  principal  one,  of  the  Heidelberg  Cate- 
chism, which  verbally  affirms  election  but  not  preterition, 
])resents  an  elaborate  statement  and  defence  of  reproba- 
tion in  his  Christian  Theology  (Qu.  5-i),  composed  in  ex- 
planation of  this  creed/ 

What  is  preterition  ?  It  is  God's  passing  by  a  sinner  in 
the  bestowment  of  regenerating^  not  of  connnon  grace. 
All  men  are  blessed  with  common  grace.     There  is  no 

'  Dr.  Scliaff,  in  the  Evangelist,  for  November  14,  1889,  asserts  that 
the  Gallican,  Belgic,  Second  Helvetic,  First  Scotch,  and  Dort  symhols, 
"are  silent  on  the  decree  of  reprobation  and  preterition."  The  foUov*-- 
ing  extracts  from  liis  Creeds  of  Christendom  show  that  this  is  an  error. 
Gallican,  Art.  12:  *'God  calleth  out  of  corruption  and  condemnation 
those  whom  he  hath  chosen  without  consideration  of  their  works,  in 
order  to  display  in  them  the  riches  of  his  mercy ;  leating  (laissant)  the 
rest  in  this  same  corruption  and  condemnation,  in  order  to  manifest 
in  them  his  justice.''  Belgic,  Art.  IC :  *' God  is  merciful,  since  he 
delivers  from  perdition  all  whom  he  hath  elected  in  Christ  Jesus, 
without  any  respect  to  their  works  ;  just,  in  leamng  (laissant)  the  others 
in  the  fall  and  perdition  wherein  they  have  precipitated  themselves." 
Second  Helvetic,  Cap.  x.  4,  6  :  "  Though  God  knows  who  are  his,  and 
sometimes  the  fewness  of  the  elect  is  spoken  of,  yet  we  are  to  have  hope 
for  all,  and  no  one  is  rashly  to  be  numbered  with  the  reprobate.  We  do 
not  approve  of  the  impious  words  of  those  who  say :  *If  I  am  elected,  I 
shall  be  saved,  however  I  may  act  ;  if  I  am  one  of  the  reprobate, 
neither  faith  nor  repentance  will  be  of  any  use,  since  the  decree  of  God 
cannot  be  altered.'"  First  Scotch,  Art.  8:  "For  this  cause  we  are 
not  afraid  to  call  God  our  Father,  not  so  much  because  he  has  created 
us,  which  we  have  in  common  with  the  reprobate^  as  that  he  has  given 
to  us  his  only  Son  to  be  our  brother.''  Dort  Canons,  i.  15:  "Holy 
Scripture  testifieth  that  not  all,  but  some  only,  are  elected,  while  others 
are  passed  by  in  the  eternal  decree  ;  whom  God  out  of  his  sovereign 
good  pleasure  hath  decreed  to  leave  in  the  misery  into  which  they  have 
wilfully  plunged  themselves,  permitting  them  to  follow  tlieir  own  way. 
And  this  is  the  doctrine  of  rejwobatmi,  which  by  no  means  makes  God 
the  author  of  sin  (the  very  thought  of  which  is  blasphemy),  but  declares 
him  to  be  a  righteous  judge  and  punisher  of  sin." 


44  THE  PROPOSED   EEVISION  OF 

election  or  reprobation  in  tins  reference.  God's  mercy  in 
this  form  and  degree  of  it  is  universal  and  indiscriminate. 
Bat  common  grace  fails  to  save  the  sinner,  because  of  his 
love  of  sin,  his  aversion  to  holiness,  and  his  unbelief. 
The  martyr  Stephen's  words  are  applicable  to  every  man 
in  respect  to  common  grace :  "  Ye  stiff-necked,  ye  do 
always  resist  the  Holy  Ghost "  (Acts  7  :  51).  Conse- 
quently, in  order  to  save  any  sinner  whatsoever  requires  a 
still  higher  grade  of  grace  which,  in  the  phrase  of  the 
Larger  Catechism  (67),  "  powerfully  determines  "  his  will 
by  regenerating  it.  Here  is  where  the  Divine  discrimina- 
tion comes  in.  It  is  with  reference  to  this  kind  and  de- 
gree of  grace  that  God  says  :  "  I  will  have  mercy  on  w^hom 
I  will  have  mercy  "  (Ex.  33  :  19  ;  Eom.  9  :  15).  And  this 
is  the  Scripture  truth  which  is  now  on  trial  in  the  Pres- 
byterian Church.  This  is  the  particular  doctrine  which 
excites  animosity  in  some  minds,  and  which  it  is  con- 
tended must  be  cut  out  of  the  Confession  like  cancerous 
matter  that  is  killing  the  body.  Let  us  consider  the  ob- 
jections that  are  made  to  it. 

1.  It  is  objected  that  preterition  is  inconsistent  toith 
the  infinite  compassion  of  God  for  the  souls  of  all  men, 
and  cannot  be  squared  with  such  assertions  as,  "  As  I  live, 
saith  the  Lord,  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  the 
wicked;  but  that  the  wicked  turn  from  his  way  and  live: 
turn  ye,  turn  ye,  for  why  will  ye  die?  God  so  loved  the 
world  that  he  gave  his  only-begotten  Son,  that  whoso- 
ever believeth  in  him  might  not  perish  but  have  everlast- 
ing life." 

The  first  reply  to  this  is,  that  these  and  many  similar 
affirmations  of  the  Divine  pity  for  the  sinful  soul  and 
desire  for  its  salvation,  are  written  in  the  same  inspired 
volume  that  contains  such  assertions  as  the  following : 
"  Many  shall  seek  to  enter  in  and  shall  not  be  able.     He 


THE   WESTMINSTER  STANDARDS.  45 

hath  blinded  tlieir  ejes  and  liardened  their  liearts,  that 
they  should  not  sec  with  their  eyes,  and  be  converted, 
and  I  should  heal  them.  The  Son  of  man  goeth  as  it  was 
determined  ;  but  woe  unto  that  man  by  whom  he  is  be- 
trayed. I  will  have  mercy  on  whom  I  will  have  mercy, 
and  I  will  have  compassion  on  wliom  I  will  have  compas- 
sion. So  then  it  is  not  of  him  that  willeth,  nor  of  him 
that  runneth,  but  of  God  that  sheweth  mercy.  The  chil- 
dren being  not  yet  born,  neither  having  done  any  good  or 
evil,  that  the  purpose  of  God  according  to  election  mi^rht 
stand  not  of  works  but  of  him  that  calleth,  it  was  said. 
The  elder  shall  serve  the  younger.  The  disobedient  stum- 
ble at  the  word,  whereunto  also  they  were  appointed." 
Since  both  classes  of  passages  come  from  God,  he  must 
perceive  that  they  are  consistent  with  each  other  whether 
man  can  or  not.  Both,  then,  must  be  accepted  as  eternal  / 
truth  by  an  act  of  faith,  by  every  one  wdio  believes  in  the 
inspiration  of  the  Bible.  They  must  be  presumed  to  be 
self-consistent,  whether  it  can  be  shown  or  not. 

But,  secondly,  there  are  degrees  of  mercy.  Because 
God  does  not  show  the  highest  degree  of  it  to  a  particular 
sinner,  it  does  not  follow  that  he  does  not  show  him  any 
at  all.  lie  may  grant  him  the  mercy  of  common  grace, 
and  when  this  is  resisted  and  nullified  by  his  hostile  self- 
will  and  obstinate  love  of  sin,  he  may  decide  not  to  bestow 
the  mercy  of  special  grace,  and  yet  not  be  chargeable  with 
destitution  of  love  and  compassion  towards  him.*  Any 
degree  of  love  is  love  ;  and  any  degree  of  compassion  is 
compassion.  To  contend  that  the  Divine  love  must  be  of 
exactly  the  same  degree  towards  all  creatures  alike  or  else 

^  Man  is  compelled  to  speak  of  God's  decision  or  decree  in  this  way, 
tliougli  strictly  there  is  no  before  or  after  for  him.  All  his  decrees  are 
eternal  and  simultaneous.  Yet  there  is  an  order  of  nature.  Special 
grace  supposes  the  failure  of  common  grace. 


46  THE  PROPOSED   REVISION   OF 

it  is  not  love,  is  untenable.  It  is  certain  that  God  can 
feel  love  and  pity  towards  the  souls  of  all  men,  as  bis 
creatures  and  as  sinners  lost  by  their  own  fault,  and  mani- 
fest it  in  that  measure  of  grace  which  "  leads  to  repent- 
ance "  (Rom.  2 :  4),  and  would  result  in  it  if  it  were  not 
resisted,  and  yet  not  actually  save  them  all  from  the  con- 
sequences of  their  own  action.  The  Scriptures  plainly 
teach  that  God  so  loved  the  whole  world  that  he  gave  his 
only-begotten  Son  to  make  expiation  for  "  the  sins  of  the 
whole  world  ; "  and  they  just  as  plainly  teach  that  a  part 
of  this  world  of  mankind  are  sentenced,  by  God,  to  eternal 
death  for  their  sins.  The  Arminian  and  the  Calvinist 
both  alike  deny  the  doctrine  of  universal  salvation,  yet 
believe  that  this  is  compatible  with  the  doctrine  of  God's 
universal  benevolence.  Both  deny  the  inference  that  if 
God  does  not  save  every  human  being,  he  does  not  love 
the  soul  of  every  human  being ;  that  if  he  does  not  do  as 
much  for  one  person  as  he  does  for  another,  he  is  unmer- 
ciful towards  him.  It  is  a  fallacy  to  maintain,  that  unless 
God  does  all  that  he  possibly  can  to  save  a  sinner,  he  does 
not  do  anything  towards  his  salvation  ;  as  it  would  be  fal- 
lacious to  maintain,  that  unless  God  bestows  upon  a  person 
all  the  temporal  blessings  that  are  within  his  power,  he 
does  not  show  him  any  benevolence  at  all.  This  fallacy 
lies  under  the  argument  against  preterition.  It  is  asserted 
that  if  God  "passes  by"  a  sinner  in  the  bestowment  of 
regenerating  grace,  he  has  no  love  for  his  soul,  no  desire 
for  its  salvation,  and  does  nothing  towards  its  welfare. 
But  if  God  really  felt  no  compassion  for  a  sinner,  and 
show^ed  him  none,  he  would  im mediately  j^'i^msA  him  for 
his  sin,  and  the  matter  would  end  here.  The  sinner's 
doom  would  be  fixed.  Just  retribution  would  follow 
transgression  instantaneously,  and  forever.  And  who  can 
impeach  justice?      "As  all  men  have  sinned  in  Adam, 


THE   WESTMINSTER  STANDARDS.  47 

and  are  obnoxious  to  eternal  death,  God  would  have  done 
no  injustice  by  leaving  them  all  to  perish,  and  delivering 
tlieni  over  to  condenniation  on  account  of  sin,  according 
to  the  words  of  the  Apostle :  '  That  every  mouth  may  be 
stopped,  and  all  the  world  may  become  guilty  before 
God  ' "  (Dort  Canons,  I.  i.).  But  God  does  not  do  this. 
lie  suffers  long  and  is  forbearing  with  every  sinner  with- 
out exception.  Theie  is  not  a  transgressor  on  earth,  in 
Christendom  or  Heathendom,  who  is  not  treated  by  his 
Maker  Ijeitcr  than  he  deserves  /  who  docs  not  experience 
some  degree  of  the  Divine  love  and  compassion.  God 
showers  down  upon  all  men  the  blessings  of  his  provi- 
dence, and  bestows  upon  them  all  more  or  less  of  the 
common  influences  and  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
This  is  mercy  to  the  souls  of  men  universally,  and  ought 
to  move  them  to  repent  of  sin  and  forsake  it.  This  com- 
mon grace  and  universal  benevolence  of  God  is  often 
spoken  of  in  Scripture.  "  Despisest  thou,  O  man,  the 
riches  of  God's  goodness,  and  forbearance,  and  long-suffer- 
ing, not  knowing  [recognizing]  that  the  goodness  of  God 
leads  [tends  to  lead]  thee  to  repentance ;  but  after  thy 
liardness  and  impenitent  heart  treasurest  up  unto  thyself 
wrath  against  the  day  of  wrath  ?  "  (Rom.  2  :  4,  5).  Here 
is  the  common  grace  of  God  enjoyed  by  men  universally, 
and  thwarted  by  their  love  of  sin,  and  obstinate  self-will 
in  sin.  But  is  God  unmerciful  and  destitute  of  compas- 
sion towards  this  man,  if  he  decides  to  proceed  no  further 
with  him,  but  leave  him  where  he  is,  and  as  he  is  ?  Is  all 
that  God  has  done  for  him  in  the  w^ay  of  long-suffering, 
forbearance,  kindness,  and  inward  monitions  in  his  con- 
science, to  count  for  nothinij:  ?  If  this  treatment  of  the 
sinner  is  not  benevolence  and  compassion,  what  is  it?  It 
is  mercy  in  God  to  reveal  to  every  man  the  law  of  God, 
nay  even  "  the  wrath  of  God  against  all  ungodliness  and 


48  THE   PROPOSED   REVISION   OF 

unrigliteousness  of  men  who  liold  the  truth  in  unright- 
eousness," for  by  this  revelation  the  man  is  warned  and 
urged  to  turn  from  shi  and  live.  This  is  one  way  in 
which  God  says  to  the  sinner,  ''Turn  ye,  turn  ye,  for  why 
will  ye  die?  As  I  live  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of 
him  that  dieth."  It  is  mercy  in  God,  and  is  so  represented 
by  St.  Paul,  when  he  "  does  not  leave  himself  without 
witness,  in  that  he  does  good,  sending  rain  from  heaven, 
and  fruitful  seasons,  filling  men's  hearts  with  good  and 
gladness,  and  makes  of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men  for 
to  dwell  on  all  the  face  of  the  earth,  and.  determines  the 
bounds  of  their  habitation,  that  they  should  seek  the  Lord, 
if  haply  they  might  feel  after  him,  and  find  him,  though 
he  be  not  far  from  every  one  of  us"  (Acts  14:  17;  17: 
26,  27).  That  this  gracious  and  fatherly' interest  in  their 
souls'  welfare  is  repelled  and  nullified  by  their  preference 
for  sin  and  love  of  worldly  pleasure,  and  comes  to  naught, 
does  not  alter  the  nature  of  it  as  it  lies  in  the  heart  of 
God.  It  is  Divine  mercy  and  love  for  human  souls,  not- 
withstanding its  ill  success. 

Common  grace  is  great  and  undeserved  mercy  to  a  sin- 
ner^ and  would  save  him  if  he  did  not  resist  and  frustrate 
it.  In  and  by  it,  "  God  commandeth  all  men  everywhere 
to  repent,"  and  whoever  reperits  will  find  mercy.  In  and 
by  it,  God  commands  every  hearer  of  the  written  word 
to  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  whoever  believes 
shall  be  saved.  The  common  grace  of  God  consists  of 
the  written,  or  in  the  instance  of  the  heathen  the  unwrit- 
ten word,  together  with  more  or  less  of  the  convicting 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Says  Hodge  (ii.  667), 
"  The  Bible  teaches  that  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  the  Spirit  of 
truth,  of  holiness,  and  of  life  in  all  its  forms,  is  present 
with  every  human  mind,  enforcing  truth,  restraining  fi-om 
evil,  exciting  to  good,  and  imparting  wisdom,  or  strength. 


THE   WESTMINSTER  STANDARDS.  49 

when,  where,  and  in  what  measure  seemeth  to  him  good. 
In  this  sphere,  also,  he  '  divideth  to  every  man  severally 
as  he  will.'  "  Whoever  is  in  any  degree  convinced  of 
sin,  and  is  in  any  degree  urged  by  his  conscience  to  con- 
fess and  forsake  it,  is  a  subject  of  common  grace.  And 
whoever  stifles  conviction,  refuses  confession,  and  "  holds 
down  the  truth  in  unrighteousness,"  resists  common  grace. 
St.  Paul  charges  this  sin  upon  both  the  heathen  and  the 
evangelized.  Common  grace,  we  repeat,  is  great  and  un- 
deserved mercy  to  a  sinner,  and  by  it  God  evinces  liis 
pity  for  his  soul,  and  his  desire  for  its  salvation.  But 
man  universally,  unevangelized  and  evangelized,  nullifies 
this  form  and  degree  of  the  Divine  mercy,  by  liis  opposi- 
tion. The  opponent  of  preterition  comes  in  here  at  this 
point,  and  contends  that  God  is  bound  to  go  yet  further 
than  common  grace  with  sinful  man,  and  subdue  his  en- 
mity by  creating  him  anew  in  the  spirit  of  his  mind  ;  and 
that  if  he  "  passes  him  by,"  and  leaves  him  whei-e  lie  is, 
and  as  he  is,  he  has  no  love  for  his  soul.  The  sovereignty 
of  God  in  this  matter  of  bestowing  regenerating  grace  is 
denied.  To  bestow  it  upon  Jacob  but  not  upon  Esau, 
upon  some  but  not  upon  all,  is  said  to  be  injustice  and 
partiality. 

Scripture  denies  that  God  is  under  obligation  to  follow 
up  his  defeated  common  grace  with  his  irresistible  special 
grace.  It  asserts  his  just  liberty  to  do  as  he  pleases  in 
regard  to  imparting  that  measure  of  grace  which  produces 
the  new  birth,  and  makes  the  sinner  "  willing  in  the  day 
of  God's  power."  The  passages  have  already  been  cited. 
And  reason  teaches  the  same  truth.  Mercy  from  its  very 
nature  is  free  and  optional  in  its  exercise.  God  may  mani- 
fest great  and  unmerited  compassion  to  all  men  in  com- 
mon grace  and  the  outward  call,  and  limit  his  compassion 
if  he  please  to  some  men  in  special  grace  and  the  effectual 
4 


50  THE    PKOPOSED    REVISION    OF 

call.  He  may  call  upon  all  men  to  repent  and  believe, 
and  promise  salvation  to  all  that  do  so,  and  yet  not  incline 
all  men  to  do  so.  No  one  will  saj  that  a  man  is  insin- 
cere in  offering  a  gift,  if  he  does  not  along  with  it  produce 
the  disposition  to  accept  it.  And  neither  should  one  as- 
sert this  of  God.  God  sincerely  desires  that  the  sinner 
wonld  hear  his  outward  call,  and  that  his  common  grace 
might  succeed  with  him.  lie  sincerely  desires  that  every- 
one who  hears  the  message  :  "  Ho,  every  one  that  thirst- 
eth,  come  ye  to  the  waters  ;  yea,  come  buy  wine  and  milk 
without  money,"  would  come  just  as  he  is,  and  of  his  own 
free  will,  "  for  all  things  are  ready."  .  The  fact  that  God 
does  not  go  further  than  this  witli  all  men  and  conquer 
their  aversion,  is  consistent  with  this  desire.  Ko  one  con- 
tends that  God  is  not  universally  benevolent  because  he 
bestows  more  health,  wealth,  and  intellect  upon  some  than 
upon  others.  And  no  one  should  contend  that  he  is  not 
universally  merciful,  because  he  bestows  7nore  grace  upon 
some  than  upon  others.  The  omnipotence  of  God  is  able 
to  save  the  whole  w^orld  of  mankind,  and  to  our  narrow 
vision  it  seems  singular  that  he  does  not ;  but  be  this  as 
^  it  may,  it  is  false  to  say  that  if  he  does  not  exert  the 
whole  of  his  power,  he  is  an  unmerciful  being  towards 
those  who  abuse  his  common  grace.  That  degree  of  for- 
bearance and  long-suffering  which  God  shows  towards 
those  who  resist  it,  and  that  measure  of  effort  which  he 
puts  forth  to  convert  them,  is  real  mercy  towards  their 
souls.  It  is  the  sinner  who  has  thwarted  this  benevolent 
approach  of  God  to  his  sinful  heart.  Millions  of  men  in 
all  ages  are  continually  beating  back  God's  mercy  in  the 
outward  call  and  nullifying  it.  A  man  who  has  had 
common  grace,  has  been  the  subject  of  the  Divine  com- 
passion to  this  degree.  If  he  resists  it,  he  cannot  charge 
God   with   unmercifulness,  because  he  does  not  bestow 


THE   AVESTiMINSTER  STANDARDS.  51 

upon  him  still  greater  mercy  in  the  form  of  regenerating 
gface.  A  beggar  who  contemptuously  rejects  tlic  five 
dollars  offered  by  a  benevolent  man,  cannot  charge  stiniri- 
iiess  upon  him  because  after  this  rejection  of  the  five  dol- 
lars he  does  not  give  him  ten.  Any  sinner  who  complains 
of  God's  "passing  him  by  "  in  the  bestowment  of  regen- 
erating grace  after  his  abuse  of  common  grace,  virtually 
says  to  the  High  and  Holy  One  who  inhabits  eternity, 
"  Thou  hast  tried  once  to  convert  me  from  sin  ;  now  try 
again,  and  try  harder."  ' 

God's  desire  that  a  sinner  should  "  turn  and  live " 
under  common  grace,  is  not  incompatible  with  his  pur- 
pose to  leave  him  to  "  eat  of  the  fruit  of  his  own  ways, 
and  be  filled  with  his  own  devices  " — which  is  the  same 
thing  as  "  foreordaining  him  to  everlasting  death."  A 
decree  of  God  may  not  be  indicative  of  what  he  desires 
and  loves.  He  decrees  sin,  but  abhors  and  forbids  it. 
He  decrees  the  physical  agony  of  millions  of  men  in 
earthquake,  flood,  and  conflagration,  but  he  does  not 
take  delight  in  it.     His  omnipotence  could  prevent  this 

'An  advocate  of  revision  remarks  that  "the  Calvinist  is  doubtless 
right  in  saying  that  God  is  under  no  obligations  to  save  us.  Still, 
even  if  this  be  the  case,  God  may  be,  and  I  believe  is  under  obliga- 
tions to  afford  every  man  an  opportunity  to  be  saved ;  that  he  has  no 
right  to  'pass  by'  anyone."  Two  criticisms  upon  this  suggest  them- 
selves. First,  God  in  the  outward  call  docs  afford  every  man  an  oppor- 
tunity to  be  saved.  To  every  evangelized  man  he  says,  "Believe  on 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  thou  shalt  be  saved.''  This  is  "  an  oppor- 
tunity to  be  saved."  To  every  unevangelized  man  he  says,  "  Repent  of 
thy  sins,  and  I  will  forgive  them."  This  is  "an  opportunity  to  be 
saved."  That  in  both  instances  the  opportunity  is  rejected,  does  not 
destroy  the  fact.  Secondly,  if  God  is  "  under  obligations  to  afford  the 
opportunity  to  be  saved,"  then  salvation  is  an  act  of  justice  and  the 
performance  of  a  duty.  In  affording  man  the  opportunity  to  be  saved, 
God  discharges  his  obligations.  In  this  case,  "  grace  is  no  more  grace  " 
(Rom.  9 :  6). 


52  THE   PROPOSED    REVISION   OF 

suffering  in  which  he  has  no  pleasure,  bnt  he  decides  for 
adequate  reasons  not  to  do  so.  Similarly  he  could  pre- 
vent the  eternal  death  of  every  single  member  of  the 
human  family,  in  which  he  takes  no  pleasure,  but  decides 
not  to  do  so  for  reasons  that  are  wise  in  his  sight.  The 
distinction  between  the  revealed  will  and  the  secret 
will  of  God  is  a  valid  one ; '  and  the  latter  of  these 
wills  may  be  no  index  of  the  former,  but  the  exact 
contrary  of  it.  This  is  particularly  the  case  w^hen  evil 
is  the  thing  decreed.^ 

2.  Secondly,  it  is  objected  to  preterition  that  it  is  j)ar- 
tlality.  It  would  be,  if  sinners  had  a  claim  upon  God  for 
his  regenerating  grace.  In  this  case  he  could  make  no 
discrimination,  and  must  regenerate  and  save  all.  Par- 
tiality is  impossible  within  the  sphere  of" mercy,  because 
the  conditions  requisite  to  it  are  wanting.  It  can  exist 
only  within  the  sphere  of  justice,  where  there  are  rights 
and  duties  j  claims  and  obligations.  A  debtor  cannot 
pay  some  of  his  creditors  and  "  pass  by  "  others,  without 
partiality.  But  in  the  sphere  of  mercy,  where  there  is 
no  indebtedness,  and  no  claim,  the  patron  may  give  to 
one  beggar  and  not  to  another,  if  he  so  please,  because  he 
"  may  do  what  he  will  with  his  own  " — that  is,  with  what 


'  God's  revealed  •will,  or  will  of  desire,  is  expressed  in  Isa.  55 :  1 ; 
Ezek.  33  :  11  ;  1  Tim.  2:4;  Tit.  2:11.  His  secret  will,  or  will  of  de- 
cision and  purpose  in  particular  instances,  is  expressed  in  Mat.  13:  11 ; 
John  6 :  37,  44,  65;  Rom.  9  :  16,  18,  19. 

'^  The  difference  between  will  as  general  desire  and  inclination,  and 
will  as  a  particular  volition  or  decision  in  a  special  instance,  is  seen  in 
human  action,  and  is  well  understood.  For  sufficient  reasons,  a  man 
may  decide  in  a  particular  case  to  do  by  a  volition  something  entirely 
contrary  to  his  uniform  and  abiding  inclination.  He  is  uniformly 
averse  and  disinclined  to  physical  pain,  but  he  may  decide  to  have  liis 
leg  amputated.  This  decision  is  his  ''decree,"  and  is  no  index  of 
what  he  is  pleased  with. 


THE    AVESTMINSTER   STANDARDS.  5'} 

lie  does  not  owe  to  any  one.  The  parable  of  tlie  talents 
Avas  spoken  by  our  Lord  to  illustrate  the  doctrine  of  the 
Divine  sovereignty  in  the  bestownient  of  unmerited  gifts  ; 
and  the  regeneration  of  the  soul  is  one  of  the  greatest  of 
them. 

This  is  a  conclusive  answer  to  the  charge  of  partiality 
and  injustice,  but  some  would  avoid  the  charge  by  striking 
out  the  tenet  of  preterition,  and  retaining  that  of  election. 
In  this  case,  election  becomes  universal.  If  no  men  are 
omitted  in  the  bestowment  of  regenerating  grace,  all  men 
are  elected.  This  is  universal  salvation,  because  all  the 
elect  are  infallibly  regenerated  and  saved.  And  this  is  *^ 
the  manner  in  which  the  Later  Lutheranism  handles  the 
doctrine.  It  denies  preterition,  and  strenuously  opposes 
this  article  of  the  Eeformed  creed.  If  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  after  having  adopted  preterition  for  two  centu- 
ries, shall  now  declare  that  it  is  an  un-Scriptural  and  erro- 
neous tenet,  the  meaning  of  the  revision  will  be,  that  God 
has  no  sovereign  liberty  to  ''pass  by"  any  sinners,  but 
must  save  them  all.  This  is  the  form  in  w^hich  election 
is  held  by  Schleiermacher  and  his  school.  They  contend 
that  there  is  no  reprobation  of  any  sinner  whatsoever. 
All  men  are  elected,  because  to  pass  by  any  is  injustice 
and  partiality.  "  Calling  (vocatio),"  says  Dorner,  "  is 
universal,  for  the  Divine  purpose  of  redemption  is  just 
as  universal  as  the  need  and  capacity  of  redemption  so  that 
the  notion  of  a  Divine  decree  to  ^x^ss  hy  a  jportion  of 
mankind^  and  to  restoi^e  freedom  of  decision  only  to  the 
rest,  is  out  of  the  question  "  (Christian  Doctrine,  iv.  183). 
It  is  this  form  of  Universal  ism,  which  postulates  the  offer 
of  mercy  to  all  men  as  something  due  to  them,  if  not  in 
this  life  then  in  the  next,  and  denies  that  the  regener- 
ating work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  confined  to  earth  and 
time,  but  goes  on  in  the  intermediate  state,  that  is  per- 


-K 


54  THE   PROPOSED   REVISION   OF 

colatiiig  into  the  Scotch  and  American  Calvinism  from 
the  writino;s  of  one  class  of  German  divines.  Should 
tlie  presbyteries  reject  the  doctrine  of  preterition  they 
will  help  on  this  tendency.  A  creed  like  the  Heidel- 
berg, or  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  may  not  have  preteri- 
tion verbally  stated,  and  yet  im^iily  it  by  its  statement 
of  election  and  by  other  parts  of  the  symbol.  But  if 
a  creed  like  the  Westminster,  whicli  has  both  doctrines 
verbally  stated,  is  subsequently  revised  so  as  to  strike  out 
preterition,  then  this  tenet  cannot  be  implied.  It  is 
positively  branded  as  error,  and  lejected  by  the  revising 
Church.  If  therefore  the  presbyteries  shall  assert  that 
God  does  not  "  pass  by  "  any  sinner  in  respect  to  regener- 
ating grace,  they  ^vill  commit  themselves  to  universal 
salvation  in  the  form  above  mentioned.  Election  will  no 
longer  be  balanced  and  limited  by  preterition,  but  will  be 
unlimited  and  universal. 

And  with  this  will  be  connected  another  fatal  error  : 
namely,  that  God  is  under  ohligation  to  elect  and  regen- 
erate every  man.  If  justice  forbids  him  to  "  pass  by  "  any 
sinners,  and  "  ordain  them  to  dishonor  and  wrath  for  their 
sin,"  he  is  bound  to  elect  all  sinners  and  "  predestinate 
them  to  everlasting  life."  He  has  no  liberty  or  sover- 
eignty in  the  case.  He  cannot  say,  "  I  will  have  mercy 
upon  whom  I  will  have  mercy,  and  whom  I  will  I  harden 
[do  not  soften]  "  (Eom.  9  :  18).  This  transmutes  mercy 
into  justice.  Pardon  becomes  a  Divine  duty.  The  offer 
of  Christ's  sacrifice,  nay  even  the  providing  of  it,  becomes 
a  debt  which  God  owes  to  every  human  creature.  This  is 
the  assumption  that  lies  under  all  the  various  modes  of 
Universalism.  Sinful  men,  loving  sin,  bent  on  sin,  are 
told  that  they  are  entitled  to  the  offer  of  mercy  and  re- 
generating grace  ;  that  they  must  have  a  ''  fair  opportu- 
nity "  of  salvation,  if  not  here,  then  hereafter.    Sinful  men, 


THE   WESTMINSTER   STANDARDS.  66 

full  of  self-indulgence,  confessing  no  sin  and  putting  up 
no  prayer  for  forgiveness,  and  wlio  have  all  their  lifetime 
suppressed  the  monitions  of  conscience  and  quenched  the 
Holy  Spirit's  strivings  with  them  in  liis  exercise  of  com- 
mon grace,  are  taught  that  if  God  shall  pass  them  by,  and 
leave  them  to  the  sin  that  they  prefer,  he  is  an  unmerci- 
ful despot. 

And  here  is  the  point  where  \.\\q  jpractlcal  value  of  the 
doctrine  of  election  and  preterition  is  clearly  seen.  With- 
out it,  some  of  the  indispensable  characteristics  of  a  gen- 
uine Christian  experience  are  impossible.  Hence  it  is 
that  St.  Paul  continually  employs  it  in  producing  true  re- 
pentance for  sin,  deep  humility  before  God,  utter  self-dis- 
trust, sole  reliance  on  Christ's  sacrifice,  and  a  cheering 
hope  and  confidence  of  salvation,  founded  not  on  the  sin- 
ner's ability  and  what  God  owes  him,  but  on  God's  gra- 
cious and  unobliged  purpose  and  covenant.  This  is  the 
doctrine  which  elicits  from  him  the  rapturous  exclama- 
tion, "  O  the  depth  of  the  riches  both  of  the  w^isdom  and 
knowledge  of  God.  For  who  hath  first  given  to  him,  and 
it  shall  be  recompensed  unto  him  again  ?  For  of  him, 
and  through  him,  and  to  him  are  all  things :  to  whom  be 
glory  forever.  Amen."  This  is  the  doctrine  which  in- 
structs the  believer  to  ascribe  all  his  holy  acts,  even  the 
act  of  faith  itself,  to  the  unmerited  and  sovereign  grace  of 
his  redeeming  God,  and  with  Charles  Wesley  to  sing  : 

* '  Hangs  my  helpless  soul  on  Thee. " 

It  is  said  that  the  doctrine  of  preterition  is  not  and  can- 
not be  preached.  It  does  not  require  technical  terms  and 
syllogistical  reasoning,  in  order  to  preach  a  doctrine. 
Who  so  preaches  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  or  of  regen- 
eration, or  of  original  sin,  or  of  vicarious  atonement,  or 
of  endless  punishment?     The  doctrine  of  preterition  is 


r,6  THE   PROPOSED   KEVISION   OF 

preaclied  whenever  the  herald  proclaims  to  the  transgres- 
sor of  God's  law  that  sin  is  gnilt  and  not  misfortune  ;  that 
the  criminal  has  no  claim  npon  the  pardoning  power  for 
pardon  ;   that  the   Supreme   Judge   might   justly   inflict 
upon   him  the  penalty  which  his  sin  deserves ;  that  his 
soul  is  helplessly  dependent  upon  the  optional  nnobliged 
decision  of  his  Maker  and  Saviour  ;  and  that  it  is  noth- 
ing but  God's  special  grace  in  regeneration  that  makes 
him   to  differ  from  others  who  go  down   to  perdition. 
That   these   humbling   and   searching  trutlis  are  taught 
more  thoroughly  at  some  times  than  others,  is  true.    That 
they  will  empty  some  pews  at  all  times,  is  true.     It  may 
be  that  they  are  less  taught  now  than  formerly  ;  and  if 
so,  this  is  not  the  time  either  to  revise  or  construct  creeds. 
But  whenever  the  Divine  Spirit  is  present"  with  his  illum- 
ination,  and  the   Scriptures  are   plainly  preached,  they 
come  into  the  foreground.     If  they  shall  be  revised  out  of 
the  Confession,  it  is  certain  that  they  will  be  taught  less 
and  less,  and  will  finally  disappear  from  the  religious  ex- 
perience. 

The  sinner's  acknowledgment  that  God  might  justly 
pass  him  by,  and  leave  him  in  his  resistance  of  common 
grace,  is  a  necessary  element  in  genuine  repentance. 
Whoever  denies  this,  lacks  the  broken  and  contrite  heart. 
Such  was  the  sorrow  of  the  penitent  thief:  "  We  are  in 
this  condemnation  justly  ;  for  we  receive  the  due  reward 
of  our  deeds."  Such  was  the  penitence  of  the  prodigal 
son  :  "  Father,  I  have  sinned  against  heaven,  and  am  no 
niore  worthy  to  be  called  thy  son  ;  make  me  as  one  of  thy 
hired  servants."  Such  w^as  the  temper  of  the  leper : 
"  Lord,  if  thou  wilt,  thou  canst  make  me  clean."  I^o  one 
of  these  penitents  took  the  ground  that  God  owed  him 
pardon  and  regeneration,  and  that  to  pass  liim  by  and  or- 
dain him  to  the  eternal  death  which  sin  deserves  would 


THE   WESTMINSTER   STANDARDS.  57 

be  an  act  dishonorable  to  God.  To  deny  God's  sover- 
eignty in. his  exercise  of  mercy,  is  to  set  np  a  claim  for 
salvation,  and  whoever  does  this  evinces  that  he  has  no 
true  view  of  sin  as  ill  desert,  and  no  true  sorrow  for  it  as 
such.  There  is  need  of  this  doctrine  in  all  aires,  owino-  to 
the  pride  of  the  human  heart,  and  its  unwillingness  to 
bend  the  knee  and  renounce  all  merit  and  confess  all  de- 
merit before  God.  And  there  is  special  need  of  it  in  our 
age,  when  the  Christian  expeiience  is  defective  at  this 
point,  and  i-edemption  is  looked  upon  as  something  which 
God  owes  to  mankind,  and  is  bound  to  provide  for  them. 
Unless  this  important  truth  is  repristinated,  and  restored 
to  its  proper  place  in  the  consciousness  of  the  Church,  the 
current  of  Restorationism  will  set  stronger  and  strongci-, 
and  the  result  will  be  a  gi-eat  apostasy  in  Christendom. 
This  is  no  time  to  eradicate  it  from  the  Calvinistic  creeds, 
but  on  the  contrary  to  reaffirm  it  with  confidence,  and 
defend  it  out  of  Scripture. 

Some  say  that  preterition  is  liable  to  be  understood  as 
preventing  a  sinner's  salvation,  and  would  have  an  ex- 
planation added  to  the  doctrine,  to  the  effect  that  this  is 
not  its  meaning  or  intent.  We  would  respect  the  opin- 
ion of  any  Christian  believer  who  sincerely  thinks  that 
the  language  of  the  Standards  is  unguarded,  and  who 
does  not  desire  to  change  their  doctrines  but  only  to  make 
sure  that  they  are  understood.  This  is  not  revision,  but 
explanation  ;  and  a  declarative  statement  similar  to  that  of 
tlie  United  Presbyterians,  which  leaves  the  Confession  un- 
touched, is  the  least  objectionable  of  all  the  plans  before 
the  Presbyterian  Churches.  But  if  it  be  borne  in  mind 
that  preterition  is  by  the  permissive^  not  efficacious  de- 
cree, what  call  is  there  for  such  a  guarding  clause  ?  How 
does  or  can  God's  decision  to  leave  a  sinner  to  do  just 
\vhat  he  likes,  hinder  the  sinner  from  faith  and  repent- 


'\    ^' 


58  THE  PROPOSED   REVISION   OF 

ance  ?  How  does  or  can  God's  purpose  to  save  another 
sinner,  prevent  this  sinner  from  smiting  on  his  breast, 
saying,  ^'  God,  be  merciful  to  me,  a  sinner  ?  "  "  It  is  not 
the  fault  of  the  gospel,''  say  the  Dort  Canons  (I.,  iii.  iv. 
9),  "  nor  of  Christ  offered  therein,  nor  of  God  who  calls 
men  by  the  gospel  and  confers  upon  them  various  gifts, 
that  those  who  are  called  by  the  ministry  of  the  word  re- 
fuse to  come  and  be  converted.  The  fault  lies  in  them- 
selves." There  is  nothing  causative  in  the  decree  of  pret- 
erition.  John  Bunyan's  statement  of  the  matter  is  plain 
common  sense.  "  Eternal  reprobation  viakes  no  man  a 
sinner.  The  foreknowledge  of  God  that  the  reprobate 
will  perish,  inahes  no  man  a  sinner.  God's  infallible  de- 
termining upon  the  damnation  of  him  that  perisheth, 
makes  no  man  a  sinner.  God's  patience  and  forbearance 
until  the  reprobate  fits  himself  for  eternal  destruction, 
7naJces  no  man  a  sinner"  (Reprobation  Asserted,  xi.). 
Whatever  God  does  by  a  permissive  decree,  excludes 
causation  on  his  part.  God  is  not  the  author  of  the  sin 
in  which  he  leaves  the  sinner  ;  or  of  the  impenitence  to 
which  he  gives  him  over.  His  action  in  preterition  is  in- 
action, rather  than  action.  He  decides  to  do  nothing  to 
prevent  the  free  will  of  the  sinner  from  its  own  action. 
With  what  color  of  reason  can  it  be  said  that  God  forces 
a  man  into  perdition,  when  this  is  all  he  does  to  him  ? 
that  God  hinders  a  man  from  faith  and  repentance,  when 
he  lets  him  entirely  alone  %  To  put  the  proposed  expla- 
nation and  caveat  into  the  Confessional  doctrine  of  pret- 
erition, would  be  like  writing  under  Landseer's  lions, 
'•  These  are  not  sheep,"  or  under  Paul  Potter's  bull, 
"  This  is  not  a  horse." 

The  preterition  of  a  sinner  is  not  his  exclusion  from 
salvation.  Exclusion  is  a  positive  act ;  but  preterition  is 
a  negative  one.     When  God  gives  special  regenerating 


THE    AVESTMINSTEK    STANDARDS.  59 

grace  to  only  one  of  two  persons,  lie  does  not  work  upon 
the  other  to  prevent  him  from  believing  and  repenting 
nnder  the  operation  of  the  common  grace  which  he  has 
bestowed  upon  both  alike,  lie  merely  leaves  the  other 
to  his  own  free  will  to  decide  the  matter ;  assnring  him 
that  if  he  repents  he  will  forgive  him  ;  that  if  he  believes 
lie  will  save  him.  The  bestowment  of  common  grace 
upon  the  non-elect  shows  that  non-election  does  not  ex- 
clude from  the  kingdom  of  heaven  by  Divine  efficiency, 
because  common  grace  is  not  only  an  invitation  to  believe 
and  repent,  but  an  actual  hel}}  towards  it ;  and  a  help  that 
is  nullified  solely  by  the  resistance  of  the  non-elect,  and 
not  by  anything  in  the  nature  of  common  grace,  or  by 
any  preventive  action  of  God.  The  fault  of  the  failure 
of  common  grace  to  save  the  sinner,  is  chargeable  to  the 
sinner  alone ;  and  he  has  no  right  to  plead  a  fault  of  his 
own  as  the  reason  why  he  is  entitled  to  special  grace.  It 
is  absurd  for  him  to  contend  that  God  has  no  rio:ht  to  re- 
fuse  him  regenerating  grace,  because  he  has  defeated  the 
Divine  mercy  in  common  grace.  The  true  way  out  of  the 
difficulty  for  the  sinner  is,  not  to  demand  regenerating 
grace  as  a  debt  by  denying  that  God  has  the  right  to 
withhold  it,  but  to  confess  the  sinful  abuse  and  frustra- 
tion of  common  grace,  and  to  cry  with  the  leper  :  "  Lord, 
if  thou  wilt,  thou  canst  make  me  clean." 

Having  thus  demonstrated  the  Scriptural  and  self-con- 
sistent character  of  the  doctrine  of  decrees  as  contained  in 
the  Westminster  Standards,  we  turn  now  to  consider  two 
erroneous  conclusions  that  are  drawn  from  it,  which  are 
urged  as  reasons  for  their  revision  :  First,  that  it  shuts 
out  the  entire  heathen  world  from  Christ's  redemption  ; 
and,  second,  that  it  implies  the  damnation  of  a  part  of 
those  who  die  in  infancy. 

Some  adv^ocates  of  revision  seem,  unintentionally  prob- 


60  THE  PEOPOSED    KEVISIOIsr   OF 

ably,  to  load  down  the  Confession  with  faults  not  belong- 
ing to  it.  They  put  the  worst  interpretation  upon  its 
terms  and  phraseology  ;  insist  that  its  defenders  have  no 
rio'ht  to  its  necessary  implications  and  natural  inferences 
in  determining  what  it  really  means  ;  and  that  an  analytic 
and  positive  affirmation  of  every  particular  point  must 
be  found  in  it.  Interpreting  in  this  prejudiced  manner, 
they  assert  that  the  Standards  do  not  declare  the  universal 
love  and  compassion  of  God ;  that  they  teach  that  God 
creates  some  men  in  order  to  damn  them  ;  ^  that  their  doc- 
trine of  election  discourages  ministers  from  making  the 
nniversal  oifer  of  Christ's  salvation,. and  hinders  sinners 
from  accepting  it ;  and  that  he  wdio  adopts  them  as  they 
read  cannot  consistently  believe  that  any  of  the  heatlien 
are  saved,  and  that  no  dying  infants  are  lost.  The}'  carry 
a  wrong  idea  of  election  and  reprobation  into  their  exege- 
sis of  the  Standards.  They  suppose  that  these  necessarily 
imply  that  only  a  very  few  are  elected,  and  that  very  many 
are  reprobated.  But  there  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of 
either  election  or  preterition,  that  determines  tlie  nuiiibev 
of  each  ;  nothing  that  implies  that  the  elect  must  bo  the 
minority,  and  the  non-elect  the  majority,  or  the  converse. 

^  A  false  exegesis  of  Romans  9  :  20  is  sometimes  employed  to  prove 
that  God  crea^^s  men  sinners.  "Shall  the  thing  formed  {irXda/jLa)  saj 
to  him  that  formed  {Tr\d(ravTi)  it,  Why  hast  thou  made  me  thus  ?  "  does 
not  mean,  "  Shall  the  thing  created  say  to  him  that  created  it,  Why  hast 
thou  created  me  thus  ?  "  Creation  ex  nihilo  would  require  kt'ktis,  not 
TrKda/xa.  The  latter  term  denotes  only  the  formative  act  of  a  moulder, 
not  the  supernatural  act  of  a  creator.  The  whole  sinful  mass  of  man- 
kind whom  God  created  holy,  have  become  sinful  by  their  own  act,  and 
lie  in  his  hand  like  clay  in  the  hands  of  the  potter.  Compare  Isa.  29  : 
16  ;  45  :  9.  The  potter,  as  sucJ),  does  not  give  the  clay  its  properties, 
but  merely  shapes  the  clay  into  vessels  of  honor  or  dishonor  as  he 
pleases.  Says  Hodge,  in  loco,  "It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind,  that  Paul 
does  not  here  speak  of  the  right  of  God  over  his  creatures  as  creatures^ 
but  as  sinfid  creatures."     Compare  Shedd  :  On  Romans,  9  :  20. 


THE   WESTMINSTER   STANDARDS.  Gl 

The  size  of  each  circle  depends  upon  the  will  of  him  wlio 
draws  it.  God,  conceivably,  might  have  elected  the  whole 
human  family  without  an  exception,  as  Schleiermacher 
says  he  did.  Or,  conceivably,  he  might  have  reprobated 
the  whole  human  family,  because  he  was  not  in  justice 
obliged  to  save  it.  There  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  elec-  , 
tion  that  makes  it  inapplicable  to  the  heathen,  or  of  pret- 
erition.  God  may  elect  and  regenerate  a  heathen  if  he 
please,  or  he  may  leave  him  in  the  sin  which  he  loves. 
And  the  same  is  true  of  the  ideas  of  election  and  preteri- 
tion  as  related  to  dying  infants.  Since  everything  in  this 
matter  depends  wholly  upon  the  sovereign  loill  of  God,  he 
may  regulate  his  choice  as  he  pleases.  lie  may  choose 
dying  infants  as  individuals,  as  he  does  adults  ;  or  he  may  ^ 
choose  them  as  a  class.  x\nd  he  might  reject  dying  in- 
fants as  individuals,  as  he  does  adults  ;  or  he  might  reject 
them  as  a  class.  For  since  infants  like  adults  have  a  sin- 
ful nature,  and,  in  the  phrase  of  the  Auburn  Declaration, 
^'  in  order  to  be  saved,  need  redemption  by  the  blood  of 
Christ,  and  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  they  re- 
quire the  exercise  of  unmerited  mercy,  which  on  grounds 
of  justice  might  be  withheld. 

We  cannot,  therefore,  determine  from  the  mere  idea  of 
election  how  many  are  elected,  or  from  that  of  pretention 
how  many  are  passed  by.  This  question  can  be  answered 
only  by  God  himself,  and  this  answer,  so  far  as  he  has 
vouchsafed  to  give  it,  is  contained  in  his  word.  That 
the  Scriptures  plainly  teach  that  the  total  result  of  Christ's 
redemption  will  be  a  triumphant  victor}'  over  the  king- 
dom of  Satan,  and  that  the  number  of  tlie  redeemed  will 
be  vastly  greater  than  that  of  the  lost,  we  shall  assume. 
It  is  also  plainly  taught  in  Scripture,  that  God's  ordinary 
method  is  to  gather  his  elect  from  the  evangelized  part  of 
mankind.      Does  Scripture  also  furnish  ground  for  the 


62  THE  PEOPOSED   EEVISION   OF 

belief,  that  God  also  gathers  some  of  his  elect  by  an  ex- 
traordinary  method  from  among  the  unevangelized,  and 
without  the  written  word  saves  some  adult  heathen  "  by 
the  w^ashing  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  ? "  We  contend  that  the  Confession  so  under- 
V  stands  the  Scriptures,  in  its  declaration  that  there  are  some 
"elect  persons  [other  than  infants]  who  are  incapable. of 
being  outwardly  called  by  the  ministry  of  the  word."  To 
refer  the  "  incapacity  "  here  spoken  of  to  that  of  idiots 
and  insane  persons,  is  an  example  of  the  unnatural  exe- 
gesis of  the  Standards  to  which  we  have  alluded.  The 
hypothesis  that  the  Confession  teaches  that  there  are  elect 
and  non-elect  idiots^  and  elect  and  non-elect  maniacs^  is 
remarkable.  It  is  incredible  for  two  reasons.  First, 
idiots  and  maniacs  are  not  moral  agents,  and  therefore  as 
such  are  neither  damnable  nor  salvable.  They  would  be 
required  to  be  made  rational  and  sane,  before  they  could 
be  classed  with  the  rest  of  mankind.  It  is  utterly  im- 
probable that  the  Assembly  took  hito  account  this  very 
small  number  of  individuals  respecting  whose  destiny  so 
little  is  known.  It  would  be  like  taking  into  account 
abortions  and  untimely  births.  Secondly,  these  "  elect 
persons  who  are  incapable  of  being  outwardly  called  by 
the  ministry  of  the  word,"  are  contrasted  in  the  imme- 
diate context  with  '*  others  not  elected,  who  although 
they  may  be  called  by  the  ministry  of  the  word  never 
truly  come  to  Christ ; "  that  is  to  say,  they  are  contrasted 
with  rational  and  sane  adults  in  evangelized  regions.  But 
idiots  and  maniacs  could  not  be  put  into  such  a  contrast. 
Tiio  "  incapacity "  therefore  must  be  that  of  circum- 
stances, not  of  mental  faculty.  A  man  in  the  heart  of 
unevangelized  Africa  is  incapable  of  hearing  the  written 
word,  in  the  sense  that  a  man  in  ]^ew  York  is  incapable 
of  hearing  the  roar  of  London. 


THE   WESTMINSTER   STANDARDS.  63 

Consequently,  tlie  Confession,  in  this  section,  intends 
to  teaeli  that  tliere  are  some  nnevangelized  men  wlio  are 
*' regenerated  and  saved  by  Christ  throngli   the  Spirit-' 
without  "  the  ministry  of  the  wiitten   word,-'  and  who 
differ  in  this  respect  from  evangelized  men  wlio  are  re- 
genei-ated  in  connection  with   it.     There   are  these  two 
classes  of  regenerated  persons  among  God's  elect.     Thoy 
are  both  alike  in  being  born,  "  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the 
will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God." 
They  are  both  alike  in  respect  to  faith  and  repentance, 
because  these  are  the  natural  and  necessary  effects  of  re- 
generation.    Both  alike  feel  and  confess  sin  ;    and  both 
alike  hope  in  the  Divine  mercy,  though  the  regenerate 
heathen  has  not  yet  had  Christ  presented  to  him.      As 
this  is  the  extraordinary  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  little 
is  said  bearing  upon  it  in  Scripture.     But  something  is 
said.     God's  promise  to  Abraham  was,  that  in  him  should 
"all  the  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed "  (Gen.  12:3). 
St.  Paul  teaches  that  ''  they  are  not  all  Israel  which  are 
of  Israel"   (Rom.  9  :  0) ;   and   that  ''they  which   are  of 
faith,  the  same  are  the  children  of  Abraham  "  (Gal.  3 :  7). 
Our  Loi-d  affirms  that  "  many  shall   come  from  the  east 
and  west,  the  north  and  the  south,  and   shall  sit  down 
with  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven"  (Matt.  8:11).     Christ  saw  both  penitence   and 
faith  in  the  nnevangelized  centurion,  respecting  whom  he 
said,  ''  I  have  not  found  so  great  faith,  no,  not  in  Israel  " 
(Matt.  8:  5-10).     The  faith  of  the  ''woman  of  Canaan," 
an  alien  and  stranger  to  the  Jewish  people  and  covenant, 
was  tested  more  severely  than   that  of  any  person  who 
came  to  him  in  the  days  cf  his  flesh,  and  of  it  the  gra- 
cious Eedeemer  exclaimed,  "  O  woman,  great  is  thy  faith  ! " 
These  two  classes  of  the  regenerate  have  their  typical 
heads  in   Scripture.       Srjs  Kurtz,   "Of  those  who    are 


64  THE   PROPOSED   EEVISION   OF 

blessed  in  the  seed  of  Abraham,  Naomi  represents  the 
people  of  God  who  are  to  proceed  from  the  ancient  peo- 
ple of  the  covenant,  and  Ruth  represents  those  proceed- 
in  o-  from  tlie  heathen  world."  That  the  Church  is  not 
to  expect  and  rely  upon  this  extraordinary  work  of  the 
Spirit,  it  is  needless  to  say.  That  this  work  is  extensive, 
and  the  number  of  saved  nnevangelized  adults  is  great, 
cannot  be  affirmed.  But  that  all  the  adult  heathen  are 
lost  is  not  the  teaching  of  the  Bible  or  of  the  Westmin- 
ster Standards. 

The  declaration  in  Confession  x.  4,  and  Larger  Cate- 
chism, 60,  does  not  refer  at  all  to  the  heathen  as  such, 
but  only  to  a  certain  class  of  persons  to  be  found  both 
in  Christendom  and  heathendom,  and  probably  more 
numerously  in  the  former  than  in  the  latter.  The  "  men 
not  professing  tlie  Christian  religion "  are  those  who 
reject  it,  either  in  spirit,  or  formally  and  actually ;  tliat 
is  to  say,  legalists  of  every  age  and  nation,  evangelized 
or  nnevangelized,  who  expect  future  happiness  by  fol- 
lowing "  the  light  of  nature  "  and  reason,  and  the  ethical 
"religion  they  do  profess,"  instead  of  by  confessing  sin 
and  hoping  in  the  Divine  mercj^  The  Jewish  Pharisee, 
the  Roman  Julian  and  Antoninus,  the  self-satisfied  Buddh- 
ist sasce  followuioc  the  "lisrht  of  Asia,"  the  Mohamme- 
dan  saint  despising  Christianity,  the  English  Hume  and 
Mill,  all  of  every  race  and  clime  who  pride  themselves 
on  personal  character  and  morality,  and  lack  the  humility 
and  penitence  that  welcome  the  gospel,  are  the  class 
spoken  of  in  these  declarations.  They  press  no  more, 
and  probably  less,  npon  the  heathen  than  upon  the 
Christian  world ;  because  the  most  hostile  and  intense 
rejection  of  the  doctrines  of  grace  is  to  be  found  in  Cliris- 
tian  countries,  rather  than  in  Pagan.  They  do  not  shut 
out  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  any  heathen  who  has  the 


THE   WESTMII^fSTER  STANDARDS.  65 

spirit  of  the  publican,  but  do  shut  out  every  heathen  and 
every  nominal  Christian  who  is  destitute  of  it.  The 
object  of  this  section  of  the  Confession,  which  is  the 
same  as  the  eighteenth  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  is 
to  teach  that  no  human  creature,  evangelized  or  un- 
evangelized,  can  be  saved  on  any  but  evangelkal  princi- 
ples ;  namely,  by  unmerited  grace,  not  by  personal  merit. 
It  IS  only  another  way  of  proclaiming  St.  Paul's  doc- 
trine,  that  ''  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  no  flesh  shall  be 
justified." 

That   this  is  the  correct  understanding  of  the  West- 
minster  Standards  is  corroborated  by  the  fact  that  the 
Calvinism  of  the  time  held  that  God  has  his  elect  amono- 
the   heathen.     The   Second    Helvetic   Confession   (i.   7)^ 
teaches  it.     Zanchius,  whose  treatise  on  Predestination  is 
of  the  strictest  type,  asserts  it.     Witsius  and  others  sug- 
gest that  the  grace  of  God  in  election  is  wide  and  far 
reaching.      The  elder  Calvinists  held  with   the  strictest 
rigor  that  no  man  is  saved  outside  of  the  circle  of  election 
and  regeneration,  but  they  did  not  make  that  circle  to  be 
the  small,  narrow,  insignificant  circumference  which  their 
opponents  charge  npon  them.     And  there  is  no  reason  to 
believe  that  the  Westminster  Assembly  differed  from  the 
Calvinism  of  the  time. 

And  this  brings  us  to  the  subject  of  ''elect  infants." 
There  is  no  dispute  that  the  Confession  teaches  that  there 
are  "elect  dying  infants."  Does  it  also  teach  that  there 
are  "non-elect  dying  infants?"  In  other  words,  does 
the  phrase  "elect  infants"  imply  that  there  are  "non- 
elect  infants,"  as  the  phrase  "elect  adults"  does  that 
there  are  "non-elect  adults?"  This  depends  upon 
whethei-  the  cases  are  alike  in  all  particulars.  The  argu- 
ment is  from  analogy,  and  analogical  reasoning  requires 
a  resemblance  and  similarity  upon  which  to  rest.^    But  the 


66  THE  PROPOSED   REVISION   OF 

Confession  directs  attention  to  a  great  and  marTced  diver- 
sity between  infant  and  adult  regeneration,  which  sets  off 
the  two  classes  from  one  another,  making  some  things 
true  of  one  that  are  not  of  the  other.  The  Confession 
points  at  and  signalizes  the  striking  difference  in  the 
manner  in  which  the  Holy  Ghost  ojperates^  in  each  in- 
stance. Infants  are  incapable  of  the  outward  call  and 
common  grace  ;  adults  are  capable  of  both.  Consequent- 
ly an  elect  infant  dying  in  infancy  is  "  regenerated  by 
Christ,  through  the  Spirit,"  without  the  outward  call  and 
common  grace  ;  but  an  elect  adult  is  "  regenerated  by 
Christ  through  the  Sprit,"  in  connection  with  the  ex- 
ternal call  and  common  grace,  and  after  both  have  been 
frustrated  by  him.  Election  and  non-election  in  the  case 
of  adults  is  the  selection  of  some  and  omi-ssion  of  others 
who  are  alike  guilty  of  resisting  the  ordinary  antecedents 
of  regeneration.  Election  in  the  case  of  dj'ing  infants 
is  wholly  apart  from  this.  There  being  this  great  dis- 
similarity between  the  two  classes,  it  does  not  follow 
that  every  particular  that  is  true  of  one  must  be  of  the 
other ;  that  because  election  is  individual  in  the  instance 
of  adults  it  must  necessarily  be  so  in  that  of  infants  ; 
that  because  adults  are  not  elected  as  a  class  infants  can- 
not be.  The  state  of  thino^s  in  which  the  reo^eneration  of 
an  adult  occurs,  namely  after  conviction  of  sin  and  more 
or  less  opposition  to  the  ti'uth,  is  entirely  diverse  from 
that  in  which  the  regeneration  of  a  dying  infant  occurs  ; 
namely,  in  unconsciousness  and  without  conviction  of  sin. 
The  only  form  of  grace  that  is  possible  to  the  dying 
infant  is  regenerating  grace,  and  the  only  call  possible 
is  the  effectual  call.  If  therefore  God  manifests  any 
grace  at  all  to  the  dying  infant,  it  must  be  special  and 
saving ;  and  if  he  call  him  at  all,  he  must  call  him  effect- 
ually. 


THE  WESTMINSTER   STANDARDS.  67 

^Now,  since  the  authors  of  the  Confession  liave  them- 
selves distinctly  specified  such  a  peculiar  feature  in  the 
regeneration  of  the  dying  infant,  it  is  plain  that  they  re- 
garded it  as  differing  in  some  respects  from  that  of  adults, 
and  intended  to  disconnect  it  from  that  of  adults  and 
consider  it  by  itself.  For  why  should  they  take  pains, 
when  speaking  of  elect  infants,  to  call  attention  to  the  fact 
that  the  "  Holy  Ghost  worketh  when,  and  where,  and  how 
he  pleaseth,"  if  they  did  not  mean  to  signalize  the  ex- 
traordinariness  of  the  Divine  action  in  infant  regenera- 
tion ?  And  if  infant  regeneration  is  extraordinary  in  not 
having  been  preceded  by  the  usual  antecedents  of  common 
grace  and  the  outward  call,  why  nuiy  it  not  be  extraordi- 
nary in  being  universal  and  not  particular?  that  of  a  class 
and  not  of  individuals  ?  Does  not  the  singularity  that 
distinguishes  the  infant  in  regard  to  regeneration  without 
conviction  of  sin,  suggest  that  of  electing  the  wdiole  class  ? 
But  what  is  far  more  conclusive,  does  not  the  fact  that 
the  Assembly  does  not  limit  infant  election  by  infant  pret- 
erition,  as  it  limits  adult  election  by  adult  preterition, 
actually  prove  that  there  is  this  great  diversity  in  the  two 
cases  ?  Does  not  the  fact  that  the  Assembly,  while  ex- 
plicitly, and  with  a  carefulness  that  is  irritating  to  many 
persons,  balancing  and  guarding  the  election  of  adults  by 
preterition,  does  not  do  so  wdth  the  election  of  infants, 
show  beyond  doubt  that  they  believed  their  election  to  be 
unlimited,  and  that  no  dying  infants  are  "passed  by"  in 
the  bestowment  of  regenerating  grace  ?  We  have  already 
seen  that  the  jpro^yoscd  omission  of  preterition,  so  as  to 
leave  only  election  in  the  case  of  adults,  would  make  their 
election  universal,  and  save  the  whole  class  without  excep- 
tion. The  actual  omission  of  it  by  the  Assembly  in  the 
case  of  dying  infants  has  the  same  effect.  It  is  morally 
certain  that  if  the  Assembly  had  intended  to  discriminate 


63  THE   PROPOSED   REVISION   OF 

between  elect  and  non-elect  infants,  as  tliev  do  between 
elect  and  non-elect  adults,  they  would  have  taken  pains  to 
do  so,  and  would  have  inserted  a  corresponding  clause 
concerning  infant  preterition  to  indicate  it.  Whoever 
contends  that  they  believed  that  preterition  applies  to  in- 
fants, is  bound  to  explain  their  silence  upon  this  point. 
Had  infant  election  been  explicitly  limited  by  infant  pret- 
erition in  the  Confession,  it  would  have  been  impossible 
for  any  candid  expounder  of  it  to  hold  that  it  permits  sub- 
scribers to  it  to  believe  in  the  salvation  of  all  dying  in- 
fants. But  Calvinistic  divines  for  the  last  century  or 
more  have  put  this  interpretation  upon  this  section  of  the 
Confession,  namely,  that  infant  election  is  not  individual 
but  classical,  and  we  think  they  are  justified  in  so  doing 
by  the  remarkable  omission  in  this  case.^ 

On  the  face  of  it,  the  thing  looks  probable.  The  case 
of  the  adult,  in  which  there  is  both  the  outward  call  and 
the  effectual,  both  common  grace  and  regenerating,  may 
be  governed  by  the  principle  of  individuality  ;  while  that 
of  the  infant,  in  which  there -is  only  the  effectual  call  and 
regenerating  grace,  may  be  governed  by  the  principle  of 
community.  Of  those  who  have  had  the  outward  call 
and  have  rejected  it,  some  may  be  taken  and  others  left ; 
while  of  those  who  have  not  had  the  outward  call  and 
liave  not  rejected  it,  all  may  be  taken.  It  is  election  in 
both  instances  ;  tliat  is,  the  decision  of  God  according  to 
the  counsel  of  his  own  will.  In  one  case,  God  sovereignly 
decides  to  elect  some  ;  in  the  other,  to  elect  all.     And  it 

'  Respecting  the  necessity  of  construing  the  Confession  as  teaching 
that  there  are  non-elect  infants,  Dr.  Schaff  remarks  as  follows  :  *'  The 
Confession  nowhere  speaks  of  reprobate  infants,  and  the  existence  of 
such  is  not  necessarily  implied  by  way  of  distinction,  although  it  'prob- 
ably was  in  the  minds  of  the  framers,  as  their  private  opinion,  which 
they  wisely  withheld  from  the  Confession  "  (Creeds  of  Christendom,  i. 
795). 


THE   WESTMINSTER  STANDARDS.  69 

is  unmerited  mercy,  in  both  instances  ;  because  God  is  not 
bound  and  obliged  by  justice  to  pardon  and  eradicate  the 
sin  of  an  infant  any  more  than  that  of  an  adult.  And 
tliere  is  nothing  in  the  fact  that  an  infant  has  not  resisted 
common  grace,  that  entitles  it  to  the  exercise  of  special 
grace.  In  the  transaction,  God  is  moved  wholly  by  his 
spontaneous  and  infinite  mercy.  He  does  an  act  to  which 
he  is  not  compelled  by  the  sense  of  duty  or  of  justice, 
either  to  himself  or  to  sinners,  but  which  he  loves  to  do, 
and  longs  to  do,  because  of  his  infinite  pity  and  compas- 
sion.^ 

That  many  of  the  elder  Calvin ists  believed  that  there 
are  some  non-elect  infants  is  undeniable  ;  and  that  in  the 
long  and  heated  discussions  of  the  seventeenth  century 
between  Calvinists  and  Arminians,  and  between  Calvinists 
themselves,  many  hard  sayings  were  uttered  by  individual 
theologians  which  may  be  construed  to  prove  that  man 
is  necessitated  to  sin,  that  God  is  the  author  of  sin,  and 
that  the  majority  of  mankind  are  lost,  is  equally  undeni- 
able. But  the  Westminster  Confession  must  be  held  re- 
sponsible for  only  what  is  declared  on  its  pages.  The 
question  is  not,  whether  few  or  many  of  the  members  of 
the  Assembly  held  that  some  dying  infants  are  lost,  but 
whether  the  Confession  so  asserts  ;  is  not,  whether  any 
Calvinists  of  that  day,  in  endeavoring  to  show  hoio  God 
decrees  sin,  may  not  have  come  perilously  near  represent- 
ing him  as  doing  it  by  direct  efficiency,  but  whether  the 
Reformed  and  Westminster  creeds  do  this. 


'  The  assumption  that  God  is  obliged  by  justice  to  offer  salvation  to 
all  mankind,  and  to  redeem  them  all,  precludes  all  gratitude  and  praise 
for  redemption,  on  their  part.  Why  should  they  give  thanks  for  a  favor 
that  is  due  to  them,  and  which  it  is  the  duty  of  God  to  bestow  ?  Chris- 
tians adore  "  the  riches  of  God's  grace  "  because  it  is  utterly  unclaim- 
able  on  their  part,  and  unobligated  on  his. 


70  THE   PROPOSED   REVISION   OF 

Tlie  rigor  of  the  theology  of  the  elder  Calvinists  has 
been  exaggerated.  They  took  a  wide  and  large  view  of 
i\\Q  j)Ossible  extent  of  election.  Owen  is  as  strict  as  most 
of  them.  But  in  argning  against  the  Arminians,  in  sup- 
port of  the  guilt  and  condemnability  of  original  sin,  he 
says  :  "  Observe  that  in  this  inquiry  of  the  desert  of  orig- 
inal sin,  the  question  is  not.  What  shall  he  the  certain  lot 
of  those  vjho  depart  this  life  tinder  the  guilt  of  this  sin 
only  f  but  what  this  hereditary  and  native  corruption 
doth  deserve^  in  all  those  in  whom  it  is  ?  For  as  St.  Paul 
saith,  'We  judge  not  them  that  are  without'  (especially 
infants)^  1  Cor.  5  :  13.  But  for  the  demerit  of  it  in  the 
justice  of  God,  our  Saviour  expressly  affirmeth  that  '  un- 
less a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  God.'  Again,  we  are  assured  that  no  unclean 
thing  shall  enter  into  heaven  (Rev.  21).  Children  are 
polluted  with  hell-deserving  uncleanness,  and  therefore 
unless  it  be  purged  with  the  blood  of  Christ,  they  have 
no  interest  in  everlasting  happiness.  By  this  means  sin 
is  come  upon  all  to  condemnation,  and  yet  we  do  not 
peremptorily  censure  to  hell  all  infants  dejparting  out  of 
this  world  loithout  thelaver  of  regeneration  [i.e.,  baptism], 
the  ordinary  means  of  waiving  the  punishment  due  to 
this  pollution.  That  is  the  question  do  facto,  which  we 
before  rejected  :  yea,  and  two  ways  there  are  whereby 
God  savetli  such  infants,  snatching  them  like  brands  from 
the  fire.  First,  by  interesting  them  into  the  covenant,  if 
their  immediate  or  remote  parents  have  been  believers. 
He  is  a  God  of  them,  and  of  their  seed,  extending  his 
mercy  unto  a  thousand  generations  of  them  that  fear  him. 
Secondly,  by  his  grace  of  election,  which  is  ^nost  free 
and  not  tied  to  any  conditions  ;  by  which  I  make  no 
doubt  but  God  taketh  many  unto  him  in  Christ  whose 
parents  never  knew,  or  had  heen  desj^isers  of  the  gospel. 


THE  WESTMIXSTER   STANDARDS.  71 

And  this  is  the  doctrine  of  our  Church,  agreeable  to  the 
Scriptures  affirming  the  desert  of  original  sin  to  be  God's 
M'ralh  and  damnation"  (Owen:  Arminianism,  Ch.  vii.). 
This  is  the  salvation  of  infants  by  botli  covenanted  and  un- 
covenanted  mercy,  and  Owen  maintains  that  it  is  a  tenet 
of  Calvinism.  That  he  does  not  assert  the  classical  elec- 
tion of  infants  is  true  ;  but  he  asserts  the  individual  elec- 
tion of  some  infants  outside  of  tlie  Church. 

Such,  then,  is  the  Westminster  doctrine  of  the  Divine 
Decree.  It  is  the  common  Augustino-Calvinistic  doc- 
trine. iS^o  part  of  it  can  be  spared,  and  retain  the  integ- 
rity of  the  system.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  inten- 
tion of  the  few  first  proposers  of  revision  ;  or  whatever 
may  be  the  intention  of  the  many  various  advocates  of  it 
who  have  joined  them  ;  the  grave  question  before  all 
parties  now  is,  Whether  the  Presbyterian  Cliurch  shall 
adhere  to  the  historical  Calvinism  with  which  all  its  past 
usefulness  and  honor  are  inseparably  associated,  or  whether 
it  shall  renounce  it  as  an  antiquated  system  which  did 
good  service  in  its  day,  but  can  do  so  no  longer.  The 
votes  of  the  presbyteries  within  the  coming  six  months 
will  answer  this  question. 


72  THE   PROPOSED    REVISION    OF 


YL 

WHAT  IS   THE  SOVEREIGNTY   OF   GOD   IN  ELECTION  ?  ^ 

It  is  generally  conceded  by  those  who  advocate  a  revi- 
sion of  the  Confession,  that  "  the  sovereignty  of  God  in 
election  "  must  be  retained  as  a  fundamental  truth.  Sev- 
eral presbyteries  have  voted  for  revision,  with  the  explicit 
declaration  that  this  part  of  the  third  chapter  must  stand  ; 
and  they  have  at  the  same  time  voted  to  strike  out  the 
doctrine  oi  jpreteritioji.  Among  them  is  the  large  and  in- 
fluential presbytery  of  New  York.  With  the  highest  re- 
spect for  our  brethren  and  copresbyters,  and  with  sincere 
regret  to  be  obliged  to  differ  from  the  majority,  we  pro- 
ceed to  raise  and  answer  the  question,  Whether  the  doc- 
trine of  "  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  election  "  can  be  held 
unimpaired  and  in  its  integrity,  if  the  tenet  of  preterition 
is  omitted  from  "  the  system  of  doctrine  contained  in  the 
Scriptures." 

The  presbyterj^  have  declared  to  the  General  Assembly  : 

1,  That  "  they  deprecate  most  earnestly  all  such  changes 
as  would  impair  the  essential  articles  of  our  faith  ; "  and 

2,  That  "  they  desire  the  third  chapter  of  the  Confession, 
after  the  first  section,  to  be  so  recast  as  to  include  these 
things  only  :  Tlie  sovereignty  of  God  in  election  ;  the  gen- 
eral love  of  God  for  all  mankind  ;  the  salvation  in  Christ 
Jesus  provided  for  all,  and  to  be  preached  to  every  creat- 
Tire."  In  this  recasting,  they  specify  several  sections  of 
chapter  third  whicli  they  would  strike  out,  and  among 

1  New  York  Observer,  Marcli  6,  1890. 


THE   WESTMINSTER   STANDARDS.  73 

them  is  the  section  which  declares  that  God  ''  passes  by  " 
some  of  mankind,  and  '*  ordains  them  to  dishonor  and 
wrath  for  their  sin."  According  to  this  deliverance,  the 
presbytery  of  New  York  supposes  that  it  can  hold  the 
doctrine  of  "  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  election  "  unim- 
paired and  in  all  its  essential  features,  while  denying  and 
rejecting  the  doctrine  of  preterition.  An  examination  of 
the  nature  and  definition  of  "  sovereignty,"  we  think,  will 
show  that  this  is  impossible. 

Sovereignty  is  a  comprehensive  term.  It  contains  sev- 
eral elements.  First  it  denotes  supremacy.  A  sovereign 
ruler  is  supreme  in  his  dominions.  All  other  rulers  are 
under  him.  Secondly,  sovereignty  denotes  independence. 
Says  Woolsey,  "  In  the  intercourse  of  nations  certain 
states  have  a  position  of  entire  independence  of  others. 
They  have  the  power  of  self-government,  that  is,  of  inde- 
pendence of  all  other  states  as  far  as  their  own  territory 
and  citizens  are  concerned.  This  power  of  independent 
action  in  external  and  internal  relations  constitutes  com- 
plete sovereignty "  (Political  Science,  i.  204:).  Thirdly, 
sovereignty  denotes  optional poioei'  •  that  is,  the  power  to 
act  or  not  in  a  given  instance.  It  is  more  particularly 
with  reference  to  this  latter  characteristic  of  free  alterna- 
tive decision,  that  "  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  election  "  is 
spoken  of.  In  his  election  of  a  sinner  to  salvation,  God 
as  supreme,  independent,  and  sovereign,  acts  with  entire 
liberty  of  decision,  and  not  as  obliged  and  shut  up  to  one 
course  of  action. 

This  is  the  common  understanding  and  definition  of 
sovereignty  as  applied  to  decisions  and  acts.  Says  Black- 
stone  :  "  By  the  sovereign  power  is  meant  the  power  of 
making  laws ;  for  wherever  that  power  resides  all  other 
powers  must  conform  to,  and  be  directed  by  it,  whatever 
appearance  the  outward  form  and  administration  of  the 


74  THE   PROPOSED   EEVISION   OF 

government  may  put  on.  For  it  is  at  any  time  in  tlie 
option  of  the  legislature  to  alter  that  form  and  adminis- 
tration by  a  new  edict  or  rule,  and  put  the  execution  of 
the  law  into  whatever  hands  it  pleases,  by  constituting 
one,  or  a  few,  or  many  executive  magistrates"  (Introduc- 
tion, 2).  Blackstone  gives  the  same  definition  of  sover- 
eio-nty,  when  it  is  vested  in  a  king  (Book  II.,  ch.  vii.). 
The  king  has  no  superior  to  oblige  or  compel  him  to  one 
course  of  action.  He  has  independent  and  optional 
power.  This  is  the  reason  why  a  monarchy  is  inferior  to 
a  republic,  as  an  ideal  of  government,  and  the  secret  of 
the  steady  tendency  to  the  latter  form  of  government,  in 
the  earth.  Sovereign,  supreme,  independent,  and  o^p- 
tional  power  is  too  great  a  power  to  be  lodged  in  the 
hands  of  one  man.  Its  safest  deposit  is  in  the  hands  of 
all  the  people. 

The  pardoning  power  is  a  sovereign  power,  and  this 
implies  choice  between  two  alternatives.  If  the  gover- 
nor of  Xew  York  has  the  power  to  grant  a  pardon  to  a 
criminal,  but  not  the  power  to  refuse  it,  he  is  not 
sovereign  in  the  matter.  If  of  two  criminals,  he  cannot 
pardon  one  and  leave  the  other  under  the  sentence  of  the 
court,  he  is  not  sovereign  in  the  matter.  When  it  is  said 
that  in  a  democracy  the  sovereign  power  is  vested  in  the 
people,  the  meaning  is  that  the  people  have  the  right 
to  make  such  a  constitution  and  laws  as  they  please.  No 
one  would  contend  that  the  people  of  New  York  have 
sovereign  power  in  the  case,  if  they  are  obliged  to  put 
imprisonment  for  debt,  or  any  other  particular  statute, 
into  their  code.  A  "sovereignty  "  that  has  no  alternative 
is  none  at  all. 

God  is  a  sovereign,  and  the  highest  of  all.  He  may 
create  a  universe  or  not,  as  he  pleases.  Were  he  obliged 
or  compelled  to  create,  he  would   not  be   sovereign  in 


THE   WESTMINSTER  STANDARDS.  75 

creating.  He  may  arrange  and  order  liis  universe  as  he 
pleases.  If  he  were  confined  to  bnt  one  order,  he  would 
not  be  sovereign  in  his  providence.  But  not  to  waste 
time  on  these  self-evident  generalities,  we  come  to  the 
case  in  hand:  the  "sovereignty  of  God  in  election:' 
The  question  is,  Whether  God  is  "  sovereign  "  in  electing, 
regenerating,  and  saving  a  sinner,  if  lie  has  no  oj^tion  in 
the  matter  ?  if  he  cannot  "  pass  by "  the  sinner,  and 
leave  him  unregenerate,  unpardoned,  and  unsaved? 
One  would  think  that  such  a  question  as  this  could  have 
but  one  answer  in  the  negative,  had  not  a  majority  of  the 
presbytery  of  New  York  answered  it  in  the  affirmative. 
The  Westminster  Confession  declares  that  "  the  sover- 
eignty of  God  in  election  "  means,  that  he  may  elect  or 
pass  by  the  sinner  as  he  pleases.  The  Revised  Con- 
fession declares  that  it  means,  that  he  may  elect  him  but 
not  pass  him  by.  The  Old  Confession  declares  that  sover- 
eignty means,  that  God  may  bestow  regenei-ating  grace 
upon  a  sinner  who  is  resisting  common  grace,  or  may  not 
bestow  it.  The  Xew  Confession  declares  that  it  means, 
that  he  may  bestow  regenerating  grace  upon  him,  but 
may  not  refuse  to  bestow  it.  The  Old  Confession  de- 
clares that  sovereignty  means,  that  God  may  pardon  the 
sinner  or  not,  as  he  pleases.  The  Kew  Confession  de- 
clares that  it  means,  that  he  may  pardon  him  but  not 
deny  him  a  pardon. 

Now  we  ask.  What  sovereignty  has  God  in  tlie  salva- 
tion of  the  sinner,  if  he  has  no  alternative  in  regard  to 
election,  regeneration,  and  pardon  ?  if  eternal  justice  re- 
quires that  he  elect,  and  forbids  that  he  pass  by  ?  if 
eternal  justice  requires  that  he  regenerate,  and  forbids 
him  to  leave  in  unregeneracy  ?  if  eternal  justice  requires 
that  he  pardon,  and  forbids  him  to  refuse  to  pardon  ? 
To  strike  out  pretention  from  the  Confession,  is  to  de- 


76  THE  PROPOSED   REVISION   OF 

clare  that  it  is  an  iinscriptural  doctrine,  and  to  brand  it 
as  error.  And  to  assert  "  the  sovereignty  of  God  in 
election  "  after  having  done  this,  is  to  assert  that  an  act 
tliat  has  no  alternative  is  a  sovereign  act. 

But  God  himself  has  decided  the  question.  He  asserts 
his  sovereign  right  to  optional  decision  in  the  matter  of 
human  salvation.  In  that  wonderful  description  of  his 
being  and  attributes  which  he  gave  to  Moses,  among 
other  declarations  he  says,  ''  I  will  be  gracious  to  whom  I 
•will  be  gracious,  and  will  shew  mercy  to  whom  I  will  shew 
mercy"  (Ex.  33:  19).  In  this  solemn  pronunciamento 
with  which  he  prefaced  the  whole  work  of  human  salva- 
tion, he  distinctly  declares  that  he  is  imder  no  obligation 
to  redeem  sinful  men,  but  that  whatever  he  does  in  the 
premises  is  of  his  own  unobliged,  free,  and  sovereign 
mercy  and  decision.  Still  more  explicitly"  in  what  is 
perhaps  the  most  terrible  passage  in  all  Scripture,  God 
asserts  that  he  will  pass  by  and  leave  in  their  sin  some 
who  have  refused  his  common  call,  and  frustrated  his 
common  grace.  "  Because  I  have  called,  and  ye  refused  ; 
I  have  stretched  out  my  hand,  and  no  man  regarded ;  but 
ye  have  set  at  nought  all  my  counsel,  and  would  none  of 
my  reproof  ;  I  also  will  laugh  at  your  calamity  ;  I  will 
mock  when  your  fear  cometh.  Then  shall  they  call  upon 
me,  but  I  will  not  answer ;  they  shall  seek  me  early,  but 
they  shall  not  find  me  "  (Prov.  1 ;  24-26,  27).  God  incar- 
nate teaches  the  same  truth,  that  "  one  shall  be  taken  and 
the  other  left"  (Luke  17:  34-36).  And  St.  Paul  recites 
the  words  of  God  to  Moses,  "  I  will  have  mercy  on  whom 
I  will  have  mercy,  and  I  will  have  compassion  on  whom  I 
will  have  compassion,"  as  a  conclusive  demonstration  of 
the  Divine  sovereignty  in  salvation. 

The  only  instance  of  the  retention  of  election,  and  re- 
jection of  preterition,  in  a  creed,  is  that  of  the  Cumber- 


THE  WESTMINSTER  STANDARDS.  77 

land  Presbjtei'ians.  Our  Arniinian  brethren  are  con- 
sistent and  logical,  like  the  Westminster  Standards,  in 
teaching  both  election  and  preterition  ;  only  they  assert 
that  both  are  conditional.  Men  are  elected  because  of 
faith,  and  are  passed  by  because  of  unbelief.  There  has 
never  been  any  proposition  to  revise  preterition  out  of  an 
Arminian  creed.  Arniinius,  Episcopius,  Liniborch,  Wes- 
ley, and  AVatson  understand  that  election  necessarily  im- 
plies the  antithetic  non-election.'  A  proposition  to  revise 
the  Confession  so  that  it  would  teach  conditional  election 
and  preterition,  would  be  self -consistent  but  anti-Calvin- 
istic ;  but  the  proposition  to  revise  it  so  as  to  declare  that 
God  elects  but  does  not  pass  by  sinners,  is  neither  con- 
sistency nor  Calvinism.  If  adopted,  the  Xorthern  Presby- 
terian Church  will  have  an  illogical  and  nnitilated  creed, 
and  will  resemble  a  wounded  eagle  attempting  to  fly  with 
but  one  wing. 

'  According  to  Brandt,  tlie  Remonstrants  defined  predestination  as 
follows:  "God  liath  decreed  from  all  eternity  to  elect  those  to  ever- 
lasting life,  who  through  his  grace  believe  in  Jesus  Christ  and  persevere 
in  faith  and  obedience  ;  and  on  the  contrary  hath  resolved  to  reject  the 
unconverted  and  unbelieving  to  everlasting  damnation  "  (Reformation 
in  the  Low  Countries,  Book  xxi.). 


78  THE  PROPOSED   REVISION   OF 


YII. 

THE  WESTMINSTER  STANDARDS  AND  THE  "LARGER  HOPE."  i 

The  doctrines  of  Calvinism  formulated  in  the  Westmin- 
ster Standards  are  represented  b}^  many  persons  as  destin- 
ing the  vast  majority  of  the  human  race  to  an  eternity  of 
sin  and  misery.  They  are  pessimistic,  it  is  said  ;  envelop- 
ing this  brief  liuman  life  in  gloom  and  darkness.  The 
elect  are  very  few ;  and  the  non-elect  are  very  many. 
Practically,  the  human  species  is  lost  f orever^- like  the  devil 
and  his  angels.  Over  this  theological  system  they  would 
write  the  Dantean  inscription  on  the  portal  of  Hell,  "  All 
hope  abandon,  ye  who  enter  here."  We  shall  endeavor 
to  show  that  this  estimate  is  utterly  erroneous,  and  that 
^'  the  system  of  doctrine  contained  in  the  Scriptures,"  and 
presented  in  the  Confession,  teaches  that  an  immense  ma- 
jority of  the  human  family  will  be  saved  by  the  redemp- 
tion of  the  dying  and  risen  Son  of  God  and  Lord  of  Glory, 
and  that  the  "  larger  hope "  has  ample  scope  and  verge 
enough  within  its  limits. 

Calvinism  emphasizes  the  doctrine  of  regeneration :  the 
doctrine,  namely,  that  God  by  an  instantaneous  act  im- 
parts the  principle  of  spiritual  life  to  the  sinful  soul  with- 
out its  co-operation  or  assistance,  so  that  the  new  birth  is 
not  dependent  upon,  or  conditioned  by,  man's  agency. 
Men  who  are  "  born  again  "  are  "  born  not  of  blood,  nor 
of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of 

'  In  part,  from  the  Methodist  Quarterly  Review,  May,  1889. 


THE   WESTMINSTER  STANDARDS.  79 

God  "  (John  1 :  13).     This  doctrine  runs  all  throngh  the 
Westminster  Standards.     It  is  closely  connected  with  the 
tenet  of  election,  for  this  regulates  the   bestownient   of 
regenerating  grace.      Effectual  calling  includes  it,  for  a 
prominent  factor  in  this  is  that  work  of  God   whereby  he 
*'  takes  away  the  heart  of  stone,  and  gives  the  lieart  of 
flesh "  (Conf.   x.  1).     In  thus  magnifying  regeneration, 
the   Confession  accords  with  Hevelation.     For  on  look- 
ing into  the  Scriptures,  we  find  that  the  salvation  of  the 
human  soul  is  made  to  depend  absolutely  upon  the  new 
birth.     Christ  said  to  Kicodemus,  "  Except  a  man  be  born 
again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God."     This  implies 
that  eveiy  man  who  is  born  again  will  see  the  kingdom  of 
God.      Regeneration,   consequently,   decides  human  des- 
tiny.    Whoever  knows  how  many  of  the  human  family 
shall  have  been  quickened  from  spiritual  death  to  spirit- 
nal  life,  by  the  mercy  of  God  the  Holy  Spirit,  knows  how 
many  of  them  shall  be  saved.      Re2:eneration  determines 
liuman  salvation,  because  it  produces  everything  requisite 
to  it.     The  great  act  of  faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  by 
which  the  sinner  is  justified,  is  described  as  dependent 
npon  it.     "  Whosoever  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ, 
is  born  of  God"  (1  John  5  :  1).     "Xo  man  can  come  to 
me,  except  the  Father  which  hath  sent  me  draw  him  " 
(John  6  :  M).     '*  Ye  believed,  even  as  the  Lord  gave  to 
every  man  "  (1  Cor.  3  :  5).     ''  As  many  as  were  ordained 
to  eternal  life,  believed  "  (Acts  13  :  48).     "  Unto  you  it  is 
given  in  the  behalf  of  Christ,  to  believe  on  him  "  (Phil. 
1 :  29).      "  By   grace  are  ye    saved   through   faith  ;   and 
that  not  of  yourselves  :  it  is  the  gift  of  God  "  (Eph.  2  :  8). 
''  Christ  is  the  author  and  finisher  of  faith"  (Ileb.  12  :  2). 
Faith,  repentance,  justification,  and  sanctification  all  result 
naturally  and  infallibly  from  that  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
whereby  he  "  quickens  "  the  sonl  "  dead  in  trespasses  and 


80  THE  PROPOSED   EEVISION   OF 

sins  "  (Epli.  2:1),  and  by  "  enlightening  the  mind,  and 
renewing  the  will,  persuades  and  enables  man  to  embrace 
Jesus  Christ,  freely  offered  to  him  in  the  gospel  "  (Shorter 
Catechism,  31).  Regeneration  is  thus  the  root  from 
which  the  whole  process  of  salvation  springs.  The  regen- 
erate child,  youth,  or  man,  immediately  believes,  repents, 
and  begins  the  struggle  with  remaining  sin.  The  regen- 
erate infant  believes,  repents,  and  begins  the  struggle  with 
remaining  sin  the  moment  his  faculties  admit  of  such 
activities.  He  has  latent  or  potential  faith,  repentance, 
and  sanctilScation. 

How  extensive  then  is  regeneration,  is  the  great  ques- 
tion. In  Scripture  and  in  the  Confession  it  is  represented 
to  be  as  extensive  as  election,  and  no  more  so.  "  Whom 
he  did  predestinate,  them  he  also  called ;_  and  whom  he 
called,  them  he  also  justified  ;  and  whom  he  justified, 
them  he  also  glorified  "  (Rom.  8  :  30).  "  All  those  whom 
God  hath  predestinated  unto  life,  and  those  only,  he  is 
pleased,  in  his  appointed  and  accepted  time,  effectually  to 
call,  by  his  w^ord  and  Spirit,  out  of  the  state  of  sin  and 
death,  to  grace  and  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ "  (Conf.  x. 
1).  In  attempting,  therefore,  to  answer  approximately 
that  question  which- our  Lord  declined  to  answ^er  definitely, 
namely,  "  Are  there  few  that  be  saved  ?  "  it  is  necessary, 
first,  to  determine  \X\q  period  within  which  the  regenerat- 
ing operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  occurs  ;  and,  secondly, 
the  range  of  his  operation. 

Respecting  the  first  point,  revelation  teaches  that  the 
new  birth  is  confined  to  earth  and  time.  There  is  not  a 
passage  in  Scripture  which,  either  directly  or  by  implica- 
tion, asserts  that  the  Holy  Ghost  will  exert  liis  regenerat- 
ing power  in  the  soul  of  man  in  any  part  of  that  endless 
duration  which  succeeds  this  life.  Tlie  affirmation,  ''  My 
Spirit  shall  not  always  strive  with  man "  (Gen.   6  :  3), 


THE   WESTMINSTER  STANDARDS.  81 

proves  that  the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit  will  not  he  ever- 
lasting j'  and  the  accompanying  declaration,  "Yet  liis 
days  shall  be  a  hundred  and  twenty  years,''  implies  that 
it  will  be  coterminous  with  man's  mortal  life.  Accord- 
ingly, in  the  Old  Testament,  the  death  of  the  body  is  rep- 
resented as  the  decisive  epoch  in  man's  existence,  and  this 
earthly  life  the  period  during  which  his  endless  destiny  is 
determined.  "  The  wicked  is  driven  away  in  liis  wick- 
edness [at  death]  ;  but  the  righteous  hath  hope  in  his 
death  "  (Prov.  14  :  32).  "  When  a  wicked  man  dieth,  his 
expectation  shall  perish"  (Prov.  11 :  Y).  "If  thou  warn 
the  wicked  of  liis  way  to  turn  from  it ;  if  he  do  not  turn 
from  his  way,  he  shall  die  in  his  iniquity  "  (Ezek.  33  :  9). 
"  To  him  that  is  joined  to  all  the  living,  there  is  hope  :  for 
the  living  know  that  they  shall  die ;  but  the  dead  know 
not  anything,  neither  have  they  any  more  a  reward " 
(Eccl.  9  :  4-6).  "  In  death  there  is  no  remembrance  of 
thee  ;  in  the  grxive,  who  shall  give  thee  thanks  ?  "  (Ps.  6  : 
5).  "  Wilt  thou  show  wonders  to  the  dead?  Shall  the 
dead  arise  and  praise  thee?  Shall  thy  loving-kindness  be 
declared  in  the  grave?''  (Ps.  88:10,  11).  In  the  Kew 
Testament,  the  Saviour  of  man  also  makes  death  to  be  the 
critical  point  in  man's  history.  He  says  to  the  Pharisees, 
"  If  ye  believe  not  that  I  am  he,  ye  shall  die  in  your  sins  " 
(John  8  :  21,  24).  This  solemn  warning,  which  he  twice 
repeats,  loses  all  its  force,  if  to  die  in  sin  is  not  to  be  hope- 
lessly lost.  Christ  teaches  the  same  truth  in  the  parable 
of  Dives.  The  rich  man  asks  that  his  brethren  may  be 
exhorted  to  faith  and  repentance  before  they  die,  because 
if  impenitent  at  death  as  he  w^as,  they  will  go  to  "  hell  " 
as  he  did,  and  be  "  in  torments"  as  he  was.  And  he 
teaches  the  same  truth  in  his  frequent  warning,  "  AVatch, 
therefore,  for  ye  know  not  at  what  hour  your  Lord  Com- 
eth "  (Matt.  24 :  42).  The  Apostolical  Epistles  declare 
G 


82  THE  PEOPOSED    EEVISION   OF 

the  momentous  nature  of  death,  in  their  frequent  asser- 
tion of  "an  accepted  time,"  and  of  "the  day  of  salva- 
tion "  (2  Cor.  6:2;  Heb.  3  :  7-19  ;  4:7).  The  closing  up 
of  the  Word  of  God  by  St.  John,  affirms  a  finality  that 
evidently  refers  to  what  man  has  been  and  done  here  on 
earth.  "He  that  is  unjust,  let  him  be  unjust  still;  and 
he  which  is  filthy,  let  him  be  filthy  still ;  and  he  that  is 
righteous,  let  him  be  righteous  still ;  and  he  that  is  holy, 
let  him  be  holy  still "  (Kev.  22  :  11,  12). 

Still  further  proof  that  death  is  the  deciding  point  in 
man's  existence,  is  found  in  those  effects  of  regeneration 
which  have  been  spoken  of.  Faith,  repentance,  hope, 
and  struggle  with  remaining  sin  are  never  represented  in 
Scripture  as  occurring  in  the  future  life.  After  death  the 
regenerate  walks  by  sight,  not  by  faith  ;  has  fruition  in- 
stead of  hope  ;  and  is  completely  sanctified.  Faith,  re- 
pentance, hope,  and  progressive  sanctification  are  de- 
scribed as  going  on  up  to  a  certain  point  denominated 
"the  6?2^,"  when  they  give  place  to  sinless  perfection. 
"  He  that  endureth  to  the  end  shall  be  saved  :  "  the  end 
of  this  state  of  existence,  not  of  the  intermediate  state. 
"  We  desire  that  every  one  of  you  do  show  the  same 
diligence  to  the  full  assurance  of  hope  unto  the  end." 
"  Christ  shall  confirm  you  unto  the  end."  "  "Whose  house 
are  we,  if  we  hold  fast  the  confidence  and  the  rejoicing  of 
the  hope  vmto  the  end."  In  all  such  passages,  the  end  of 
this  mortal  life  is  meant.  And  to  them  must  be  added 
the  important  eschatological  paragraph,  1  Cor.  15  :  24-28, 
which  teaches  that  there  is  an  "  end  "  to  Christ's  work  of 
mediation  and  salvation,  when  "  there  remaineth  no  more 
sacrifice  for  sins  "  (Heb.  10  :  26). 

The  large  amount  of  matter  in  Scripture  which  teaches 
that  the  operation  of  the  Spirit  in  the  new  birth  and  its 
effects  belongs  only  to  this  life,  cannot  be  invalidated  by 


THE   WESTMINSTER   STANDARDS.  S3 

the  lonely  text  concerning  Christ's  "  preaching  to  the 
spirits  in  prison:"  a  passage  which  the  majority  of  exc- 
getes,  taking  in  all  ages  of  the  Chnrch,  refer  to  the  preach- 
ing of  Koah  and  other  "  ambassadors  of  Christ ;  "  bnt 
which,  even  if  referred  to  a  personal  descent  of  Christ  into 
an  nnder  world,  wonld  be  inadequate  to  establish  such  a 
revolutionizing  doctrine  as  the  prolongation  of  Christ's 
mediatorial  work  into  the  future  state,  the  preaching  of 
the  gospel  in  sheol,  and  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
there.  For  the  dogma  of  a  future  redemption  for  all 
the  unevangelized  part  of  mankind  is  radically  revolution- 
izing. It  is  another  gospel,  and  if  adopted  would  result 
in  another  Christendom.  For  nearly  twenty  centuries,  the 
Church  has  gone  upon  the  belief  that  there  is  no  salvation 
after  death.  All  of  its  conquests  over  evil  have  come  from 
preaching  the  solemn  truth  that  "  now  is  the  day  of  salva- 
tion." It  has  believed  itself  to  be  commanded  to  proclaim 
that  "  after  death  is  i\\Q  ji(,dg7nent "  of  sin,  not  its  forgive- 
ness. But  if  the  Church  has  been  mistaken,  and  there  is 
a  "  probation"  in  the  future  life  for  all  the  unevangelized 
of  all  the  centuries,  and  it  is  announced,  as  all  the  truth 
of  God  ought  to  be,  then  the  eternal  world  will  present  a 
totally  different  aspect  from  what  it  has.  Heretofore  the 
great  Hereafter  has  been  a  gulf  of  darkness  for  every  im- 
penitent man,  heathen  or  nominal  Christian,  as  he  peered 
into  it.  Now  it  will  be  a  darkness  through  which  gleams 
of  light  and  hope  are  flashing  like  an  aurora.  The  line 
between  time  and  eternity,  so  sharply  drawn  by  the  past 
Christianity  and  Christendom,  must  be  erased.  A  differ- 
ent preaching  must  be  adopted.  Hope  must  be  held  out 
instead  of  the  old  hopelessness.  Death  must  no  longer  be 
represented  as  a  finality,  but  as  an  entrance  for  all  une- 
vangelized mankind  upon  another  period  of  regeneration 
and  salvation.     Men  must  be  told  that  the  Semiramises 


84  THE  PROPOSED   REVISION   OF 

and  Cleopatras,  the  Tiberinses  and  N^eros,  may  possibly 
have  accepted  tlie  gospel  in  hades.  Children  in  the  Sab- 
bath-schools must  be  taught  that  the  vicious  and  hardened 
populations  of  the  ancient  world,  of  Sodom  and  Gomor- 
rah, of  Babylon  and  Nineveh,  of  Antioch  and  Rome, 
passed  into  a  world  of  hope  and  redemption,  not  of  justice 
and  judgment. 

Such  a  doctrine  takes  away  all  the  seriousness  of  this 
existence.  The  "  threescore  years  and  ten  "  are  no  longer 
momentous  in  their  consequences.  If  the  future  world  is 
a  series  of  cycles,  within  any  one  of  which  the  transition 
from  sin  to  holiness,  from  death  to  life,  may  occur,  all  the 
solemnity  is  removed  from  earth  and  time.  The  "  now  " 
is  not  "  the  accepted  time,  and  the  day  of  salvation." 
One  "  time  "  is  of  no  more  consequence  than  another,  if 
through  all  endless  time  the  redemption  of  sinners  is  go- 
ing on.  And  what  is  still  more  important,  the  moral  and 
practical  effects  of  this  theory  will  be  most  disastrous. 
For  it  is  virtually  a  license  to  si7i.  Should  God  announce 
that  he  will  regenerate  and  pardon  men  in  the  next  world, 
it  would  be  equivalent  to  saying  to  them  that  they  may 
continue  to  sin  in  this  world.  And,  of  course,  if  the 
Church  should  believe  that  all  the  unevangelized  portion 
of  mankind  may  be  saved  in  the  intermediate  state,  it  will 
make  little  effort  to  save  them  here  and  now. 

With  these  representations  of  Scripture,  respecting  the 
period  of  time  within  which  the  regeneration  and  salva- 
tion of  the  soul  occur,  the  Westminster  Standards  agree. 
"  The  souls  of  believers  are  at  their  deathTci2idiQ  perfect  in 
holiness,  and  do  immediately  pass  into  glory  "  (S.  C.  37). 
*'The  souls  of  the  wicked  are  at  their  death  cast  into 
hell"  (L.  C.  86).  The  Confessional  doctrine  is,  that  death 
is  a  finality  for  both  the  saint  and  sinner.  There  is  no 
extirpation  of  sin  after  "  the  spirit  returns  to  God  who 


THE  WESTMINSTER  STANDARDS.  86 

gave  it."  At  death,  the  unregeiierate  man  is  left  in  sin. 
At  death,  the  regenerate  but  imperfectly  sanctilied  man 
is  made  perfect  in  holiness.  The  gradual  process  of  pro- 
gress! v^e  sanctification  from  the  remainders  of  original 
corruption,  is  confined  to  this  life.  So  the  Scriptures 
teach.  "Blessed  are  the  dead  that  die  in  the  Lord  from 
henceforth  [i.e.,  from  the  time  of  theii*  death]  :  Yea, 
saith  the  Spirit,  that  they  may  rest  from  their  labors" 
(Rev.  14:  13).  "There  remaineth  ^  rest  to  the  people 
of  God.  Let  us  therefore  labor  to  enter  into  that  r6'6-^ 
(lieb.  4:  9,  11).  This  "rest"  is  total  cessation  from  the 
temptation,  the  race,  and  the  fight  with  sin  which  charac- 
terize the  present  imperfect  state.  "  To  be  absent  from 
the  body,  is  to  be  present  with  the  Lord  "  (2  Cor.  5:8); 
and  to  be  present  with  the  Lord  is  to  "  see  him  as  he  is;  " 
and  to  see  him  as  he  is,  is  to  "  be  like  him,"  sinless  and 
perfect  (1  John  3 :  2). 

The  doctrine  that  gradual  sanctification  from  sin  con- 
tinues to  go  on  after  death,  implies,  not  rest,  but  strug- 
gle, strain,  toil,  and  conflict  with  remaining  corruption. 
This  would  be  a  continuation  in  the  next  life  of  that  se- 
vere experience  in  this  life  in  which  the  believer  "groans 
being  burdened ; "  in  v/hich  he  is  often  worsted  in  the 
contest,  though  victorious  in  the  main  ;  in  which  he  cries, 
"O  wretched  man,  who  shall  deliver  me."  To  suppose 
such  a  wearisome  condition  of  the  believer's  soul  during 
the  long  period  between  death  and  the  resurrection,  can- 
not be  harmonized  with  the  descriptions  of  the  restful, 
joyful  consciousness  of  believers  when  they  are  "  with  the 
Lord,"  and  with  the  words  of  Christ,  "  This  day  shalt 
thou  be  with  me  in  paradise." 

The  notion  that  indwelling  sin  is  to  be  purged  away 
gradually  after  death,  instead  of  instantaneously  at  death, 
is  the  substance  of  the  doctrine  of  purgatory.  The  Romish 


86  THE   PROPOSED   REVISION   OF 

purgatory  is  the  progressive  sanctification  of  a  member 
of  the  Romish  Chm-ch  carried  over  into  the  intermediate 
state.  If  this  tlieorj  is  introduced  into  the  Protestant 
Cliurch,  it  will  not  stop  here.  For  if  regenerate  but 
imperfectly  sanctified  men  are  to  go  on,  between  death 
and  the  resurrection,  struggling  wdth  corruption,  and  get- 
ting rid  of  remaining  sin,  as  they  do  here  upon  earth,  it 
will  be  an  easy  and  natural  step  to  the  kindred  theory 
that  the  transition  from  sin  to  holiness  may  be  made  by 
tiwregenerate  men  also  daring  this  same  period.  Those 
who  adopt  this  latter  error,  object  to  the  Confessional 
tenet  of  complete  sanctification  at  death  by  the  immediate 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  that  it  ismagical,  mechanical, 
and  unpsychological.  It  is  incompatible,  they  assert,  with 
the  spiritual  nature  of  the  soul  and  its  free  agency.  But 
it  is  no  more  so  than  the  co-ordinate  and  cognate  .doctrine 
of  the  immediate  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  regener- 
ation. Tiie  Holy  Spirit  instantaneously  implants  the  new 
principle  of  divine  life  in  the  soul,  wdien  he  "  creates  it 
anew  in  Christ  Jesus,"  and  "  quickens  it  from  its  death  in 
trespasses  and  sins."  This  lays  the  foundation,  as  we 
have  observed  for  the  wdiole  process  of  salvation.  From 
this  instantaneous  regeneration,  there  result  conversion  in 
its  two  acts  of  faith  and  repentance,  justification,  and  pro- 
gressive sanctification  up  to  the  moment  of  death,  when 
the  same  Divine  Agent  by  the  exercise  of  the  same 
almighty  energy  by  which  he  instantaneously  began  the 
work  of  salvation,  instantaneously  completes  it.'  i^ow, 
if  the  Holy  Ghost  works  magicall}^,  mechanically,  and 
contrary  to  the  nature  of  the  human  soul  in  one  case,  he 
does  in  the  other.  If  the  completion  of  the  work  in  the 
soul  by  an  immediate  act  is  liable  to  this  charge,  the  be- 

'  For  a  fuller  discussion  of  the  subject,  see  tlie  Author's  Sermons  to 
the  Spiritual  Mau,  pp.  317-325. 


THE   WESTMINSTER  STANDARDS.  87 

ginning  of  it  is  also.  Any  one  wlio  liolds  the  doctrine  of 
instantaneous  regeneration,  is  estopped  from  urging  such 
an  objection  as  this  to  the  doctrine  of  complete  sanctifica- 
tion  at  death.  In  all  the  operations  of  the  third  Person  of 
the  Trinity,  be  they  instantaneous  or  be  they  gradual,  he 
contradicts  none  of  the  laws  and  properties  of  "the  human 
mind,  but  works  in  the  human  will  "  to  will,"  according 
to  its  nature  and  constitution.  There  is  nothing  magical, 
mechanical,  or  unpsychological  in  any  of  them. 

Another  objection  urged  by  the  advocates  of  a  future 
sanctificatlon  from  sin  is,  that  complete  sanctification  at 
death  puts  all  souls,  infant  and  adult,  on  a  dead  level, 
destroying  the  distinction  of  grade  between  them.  If  at 
death  all  regenerate  souls  are  made  perfectly  sinless  and 
holy,  it  is  said  that  they  must  be  all  alike  in  the 
scope  and  reach  of  their  faculties.  This  does  not  follow. 
Complete  sanctification  at  death  frees  the  soul  of  a  reo-en- 
erate  infant  from  all  remainders  of  the  corruption  in- 
herited from  Adam,  but  does  not  convert  it  into  an  adult 
soul,  any  more  than  the  complete  sanctification  of  an  or- 
dinary regenerate  adult  makes  him  equal  in  mental  power 
to  St.  Paul  or  St.  Augustine.  Complete  sanctification  at 
death  frees  the  infant's  soul,  the  child's  soul,  the  youth's 
soul,  the  man's  soul,  from  indwelling  sin,  but  leaves  each 
soul  in  the  same  class  in  which  it  finds  it,  and  starts  it  on 
an  endless  expansion  of  its  faculties  and  its  holiness,  and 
not  upon  a  long,  wearing  struggle  with  remaining  corrup- 
tion. In  this  way,  ''  one  star  differetli  from  another  stai- 
in  glory,"  while  all  are  equally  and  alike  the  pure  and 
gleaming  stars  of  heaven,  not  the  "  wandering  stars  "  of 
sin  and  hell. 

Such,  then,  is  the  period  of  time  to  which  the  regener- 
ating work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  confined.  It  is  the  life 
that  now  is,  not  tlie  life  that  is  to  come;  the  present 


88  THE  PROPOSED   REVISION   OF 

limited  aeon,  not  the  future  unlimited  aeon.  We  proceed 
now  to  consider  the  second  question,  How  wide  and  exten- 
sive is  his  agency  during  this  period  ?  How  many  of  the 
human  family,  have  we  reason  from  Scripture  to  hope 
and  believe,  he  will  regenei'ate  here  upon  earth  ? 

Before  proceeding  to  answer  this  question,  a  prelimin- 
ary remark  is  to  be  made.  It  is  utterly  improbable  that 
such  a  stupendous  miracle  as  the  incarnation,  humilia- 
tion, passion,  and  crucifixion  of  one  of  the  Persons  of  the 
Godhead,  should  yield  a  small  and  insignificant  result ; 
that  this  amazing  mystery  of  mysteries, ''  which  the  angels 
desire  to  look  into,"  and  which  involves  such  an  immense 
personal  sacrifice  on  the  part  of  the  Supreme  Being, 
should  have  a  lame  and  impotent  conclusion.  On  a  priori 
grounds,  therefore,  we  have  reason  to  conclude  that  the 
Gospel  of  the  Cross  will  be  successful,  and  the  Christian 
religion  a  triumph  on  the  earth  and  among  the  race  of 
creatures  for  whom  it  was  intended.  But  this  can  hardly 
be  the  case,  if  only  a  small  fi'action  of  the  human  family 
are  saved.  The  presumption,  consequently,  is  that  the 
great  majority  of  mankind,  not  the  small  minority  of  it, 
will  be  the  subjects  of  redeeming  grace.  What,  then,  is 
the  teaching  of  Revelation  upon  this  subject  ? 

1.  In  the  first  place,  we  have  ground  for  believing  that 
all  of  mankind  who  die  in  infancy  will  be  regenerated  by 
the  Holy  Spirit.  The  proof  of  this  is  not  so  abundant  as 
for  some  other  doctrines,  but  it  is  sufficient  for  faith,  (a) 
Scripture  certainly  teaches  that  the  children  of  the  regen- 
erate are  "  bound  up  in  the  bundle  of  life  "  with  their 
parents.  ''  The  promise  [of  the  Holy  Spirit]  is  unto  you 
and  your  children  "  (Acts  2  :  38,  39).  "  If  the  root  be 
holy,  so  are  the  branches  "  (Rom.  11  :  16).  "  The  unbe- 
lieving husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,  and  the  unbe- 
lieving wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband ;  else  were  your 


THE   WESTMINSTER  STANDARDS.  89 

children  unclean,  but  now  they  are  holy  "  (1  Cor.  7 :  14). 
This  is  salvation  by  covenanted  mercy,  concerning  which 
there  is  little  dispute,  (b)  The  salvation  of  infants  out- 
side of  the  covenant,  is  plainly  supported  by  the  language 
of  Christ  respecting  "  little  children ''  as  a  special  class. 
"  They  brought  unto  him  infants  {0p€<l)7j\  that  he  would 
touch  them.  .  .  .  And  he  said,  Suffer  little  children 
{iraihla)  to  come  unto  me,  for  of  such  is  {tmv  tocovtcov 
iariv)  the  kingdom  of  God  "  [i.e.,  the  kingdom  of  God  is 
composed  of  such]  (Luke  IS  :  15,  16).  The  Eedeemer 
says  this  of  infants  as  infants,  and  lecause  they  are  in- 
fants, and  consequently,  of  all  infants.  When  he  says, 
''  Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit,  for  theirs  is  [of  them 
is,  avTiov  iarlv]  the  kingdom  of  heaven "  (Matt.  5  :  3), 
he  means  that  this  kingdom  belongs  to  them  as  poor  in 
spirit,  and  hecause  they  are  poor  in  spirit,  and  consequently 
belongs  to  all  the  poor  in  spirit.  And  similarly  when  he 
says,  "  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  for  of 
such  is  the  kingdom  of  God,"  he  means  that  this  kingdom 
is  composed  of  such  considered  as  little  children,  and  le- 
cause they  are  little  children,  and  therefore  is  composed 
of  all  the  little  children.'  ;No  such  declaration  is  made 
concerning  the  other  classes  of  mankind.  Infancy  is  the 
only  age  that  is  singled  out,  by  which  to  prove  a  member- 
ship in  the  kingdom  of  God  from  the  very  age  itself. 
Again,  our  Lord's  declarations  that  "  the  angels  of  the  lit- 
tle ones  do  always  behold  the  face  of  my  Father  which  is 
in  heaven  "  (Matt.  18  :  10)  ;  and  that  it  is  "  not  the  will 
of  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven,  that  one  of  these  little 
ones  should  perish  "  (Matt.  IS  :  14)  ;  betoken  a  special 
interest  in  this  part  of  the  human  family.     And  in  the 

'  It  would  be  a  forced  interpretation  to  make  this  passage  mean, 
"Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  for  of  %ome  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  God,"     This  would  require  Ik  ruy  toiovtuv  ia-rlf. 


90  THE   PEOPOSED   REVISION   OF 

prophecy  of  Jonah,  God  mentions  tlie  existence  of  "  six 
score  thousand  persons  that  cannot  discern  between  their 
rio'ht  hand  and  their  left  hand,"  as  the  reason  for  sparing 
Nineveh.  With  these  teachings  of  E-evelation  concerning 
the  salvation  of  infants,  the  Confession  agrees.  By  posi- 
tive assertion,  it  declares,  that  there  are  "  elect  infants  dy- 
ing in  infancy  ; ''  and  by  total  silence  concerning  "  non- 
eiect  infants  dying  in  infancy  "  it  implies  that  there  are 
none. 

The  Protestant  Church  understands  the  Bible  to  de- 
clare that  all  who  die  in  infancy  die  regenerate.  Probably 
all  evangelical  denominations,  without  committing  them- 
selves to  the  statements  of  the  Westminster  Confession 
concerning  "  election,"  would  be  willing  to  say  that  all 
dying  infants  '"  are  regenerated  and  saved  by  Christ 
through  the  Spirit,  who  worketh  when,  and  where,  and 
how  he  pleaseth  "  (Conf.  x.  3).  But  this  is  the  regenera- 
tion and  salvation  of  one-half  of  the  human  family.  This 
of  itself  pours  over  human  existence  a  mild  and  cheering 
light.  "  Whom  the  gods  love,  die  young,"  said  the 
heathen,  without  any  knowledge  of  God's  compassion  for 
man  in  his  "  dear  Son."  Much  more,  then,  may  the 
Christian  under  the  irradiation  of  the  gospel  expect  that 
the  infinite  mercy  of  God,  by  ''  the  washing  of  regenera- 
tion and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  will  bring  all  the 
"little  children"  into  holiness  and  heaven.  The  gloom 
of  YirgiFs  description, 

"Coiithiuo  .auditre  voces,  vagitns  et  ingens 
Infa«t;ianag.i.T«  auimse  flentes  in  limine  primo," 

Is  ('05;vanged  into  the  brightness  of  that  of  the  prophet, 
"  The.,  ^r^ets  of  the  city  shall  be  full  of  boys  and  girls 
playing,  i^rtsU<3  streets  thereof"  (Zech.  8:  10);  and  of  the 


Tin:  wp:st3[ixstku  standauds.  91 

Kedeemer's  citation  from  the  Psalms,  "Out  of  the  mouth 
of  babes  and  sucklings  thou  liast  perfected  praise  ''  (Matt. 
21  :  16). 

2.  In  the  second  place,  the  Scriptures  and  the  Confes- 
sion teach  the  i-egenei'ation  of  a  vast  multitude,  fi'om  Adam 
down,  who  come  under  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
in  connection  with  tlie  special  revelation  and  the  external 
means  of  grace,  in  the  antediluvian,  patriarchal,  Jewish, 
and  Christian  Churches. 

3.  In  the  third  place,  the  Scriptures  and  the  Confession 
teach  that  the  Divine  Spirit  exerts  his  regenerating  grace, 
to  some  extent,  within  adult  heathendom,  making  use  of 
conscience,  or  "  the  law  written  on  the  heart,"  as  the 
means  of  convicting  of  sin  preparatory  to  imparting  the 
new  divine  life ;  and  that  in  the  last  day  a  part  of  God's 
elect  "  shall  come  from  the  east  and  from  the  west,  and 
from  the  north  and  fi'om  the  sonth,  and  shall  sit  down  in 
the  kingdom  of  God  "  (Luke  13  :  29).  These  are  all  re- 
generated in  this  life.  And  since  regeneration  in  the  in- 
stance of  the  adult  immediately  produces  faith  and  repent- 
ance, a  regenerate  heathen  is  both  a  believer  and  a  peni- 
tent. He  feels  sorrow  for  sin,  and  the  need  of  mercy. 
This  felt  need  of  mercy  and  desire  for  it  is  potentially 
and  virtually  faith  in  the  Redeemer.  For  although  the 
Kedeemer  has  not  been  presented  to  him  historically  and 
personally  as  the  object  of  faith,  jct  the  Divine  Spirit  by 
the  new  birth  has  wrought  in  him  the  sincere  and  longing 
dispositio)i  to  believe  in  him.  With  the  penitent  and 
believing  man  in  the  gospel,  he  says,  "  "Who  is  he,  Lord, 
that  I  might  believe  on  him  ? "  (John  9  :  36).  Such  a 
man  is  "regenerated  and  saved  by  Christ  through  the 
Spirit,"  and  belongs  to  that  class  of  "  elect  persons  who 
are  incapable  of  being  outwardly  called  by  the  ministry  of 
the  word  "  (Conf.  x.  3). 


92  THE  PKOPOSED   REVISION   OF 

4.  In  the  fourth  place,  in  addition  to  all  this  work  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  past  and  present  in  applying  in 
these  three  wa3^s  the  redemption  tliat  is  in  Christ  Jesus, 
there  is  that  mightiest  and  most  wonderful  manifestation 
of  his  power  which  is  still  in  reserve  for  the  future  of 
Christendom.  The  Scriptures  promise  an  outpouring  in 
the  "last  days,"  that  will  far  exceed  in  sweeping  and  irre- 
sistible energy  anything  in  the  past  history  of  the  Church. 
"I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh,"  says  God 
(Joel  2 :  28).  "  It  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days, 
that  the  mountain  of  the  Lord's  house  shall  be  established 
in  the  top  of  the  mountains,  and  shall  be  exalted  above 
the  hills,  and  all  nations  shall  flow  unto  it "  (Isa.  2:2; 
Micah  4:1).  A  far  more  profound  and  all-reaching  in- 
terest in  the  concerns  of  the  soul  and  its  eternal  destiny 
than  has  ever  been  witnessed  on  earth,  will  mark  the  mil- 
lennium. The  then  near  and  impending  advent  of  the 
Son  of  man,  "  when  he  shall  come  in  his  glory,  and  all 
the  holy  angels  with  him,  and  before  him  shall  be  gath- 
ered all  nations  "  (Matt.  25 :  31,  32),  will  weigh  heavily 
upon  mankind.  The  end  of  the  world  and  the  approach- 
ing judgment  will  be  facts  of  infinite  meaning.  This  hu- 
man life,  now  so  frivolous,  will  become  serious  and  awful. 

**The  clouds  that  gather  round  the  setting  sun 
Do  take  a  sober  coloring  from  the  eye 
That  doth  keep  watch  o'er  man's  mortality.'''' 

Yast  masses  of  sinful  men  will  be  bowed  down  in  poig- 
nant conviction,  and  nations  will  be  born  in  a  day.  The 
Redeemer,  "  travelling  in  the  greatness  of  his  strength," 
will  take  unto  him  his  mighty  power,  and  turn  the  human 
heart  as  the  rivers  of  water.  Such  is  the  promise  and  the 
prophecy  of  Almighty  God. 

Now  this  is  a  great  salvation.     "  Where  sin  abounded. 


THE   WESTMI^sSTEK  STANDARDS.  93 

grace  has  superaboiinded  "  (Iloin.  5  :  20).  The  immense 
majority  of  the  race  that  fell  in  Adam  will  be  saved  in 
Christ,  "  by  the  washing  of  regeneration."  Though  some 
men  and  angels  will  f i-eely  persist  in  depravity,  and  be  left 
in  their  persistence,  yet  this  minor  and  mournful  note  of 
discord  will  only  enhance  the  choral  harmony  of  the  uni- 
verse. The  wrath  of  man  shall  praise  God  (Ps.  70  :  10). 
The  duty  of  the  Church  is  to  preach  to  every  creature  the 
laio  by  which  men  are  convicted  of  sin,  and  tlie  gosjpel  by 
which  it  is  pardoned  and  eradicated,  praying  unceasingly 
for  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  make  both  law 
and  gospel  effectual  to  salvation.  Instead  of  starting  a 
false  and  delusive  hope  for  the  future  redemption  of  a 
part  of  the  human  family,  by  daring  to  reconstruct  God's 
plan  of  redemption  and  extending  the  dispensation  of  his 
Spirit  into  the  next  life,  the  Church  should  strengthen  the 
old  and  true  hope  by  doing  with  its  might  what  its  hands 
find  to  do,  and  crying  with  the  evangelical  prophet, 
"  Awake,  awake,  put  on  strength,  O  arm  of  the  Lord  " 
(Isa.  61 :  9). 


"The  most   learned  and   searching   uork   in  its   line    Hint    Una 
appeared  in  this  country  ivithin  the  present  generation.*^ 

—  CHICAGO    TRIBUNE, 

DOGMATIC      THEOLOGY. 

By  WILLIAM    G.  T.  SHEDD,  D.D., 

Professor  of  Systeviatic  Theology  in    L'>:ion  Theological  Seminary. 


Second  Edition,  Two  Volumes,  8vo,  with  Portrait,   Price  97.00. 


•'  Dr.  Shedd's  theology  is  full  of  the  word  of  God  in  its  ver>'  essence,  it  is  pervaded  by 
the  great  thoughts  of  the  master-minds  of  all  the  ages,  and  it  is  presented  to  us  in  a  style 
remarkable  for  its  purity  and  clearness.  The  student  who  masters  these  vohnnes  will'be 
well  armed  for  controversy  and  well  equipped  for  teaching.'' — New  "Sork  Observer. 

"These  volumes  are,  in  more  senses  than  one,  weighty.  They  are  full  of  matter.  Dr. 
Shedd  is  master  of  a  singularly  clear,  strong,  and  expressive  style,  and  wastes  no  words. 
Ample  as  are  his  discussions,  there  is  nothing  superfluous.  His  full,  yet  choice  diction, 
admirably  sets  forth  his  profound  and  well  ordered  thought.'* — Watchman^  Boston. 

"The  two  volumes  are  the  result  of  eighteen  years  of  speci  1  study,  and  of  forty 
years  labor  in  theological  research.  'J'he  treatment  is  such  as  might  be  expected  of  Dr. 
Shedd:   scholarly,  profound,  devout,  thorough." — Neiv  York  Examiner. 

"As  a  whole,  the  work  is  the  clearest  and  most  exhaustive  statement  of  dogmatic 
theology  that  has  yet  been  made,  and  for  that  reason  it  is  likely  to  attract  as  much  atten- 
tion from  scientists  as  from  theologians." — Philadelphia  Times. 

"  The  style  never  labors  nor  becomes  obscure.  The  reader  is  never  in  doubt  as  to 
the  meaning  of  the  author.  The  work  easily  takes  precedence  among  the  various  pres- 
entations of  Puritan  Calvinism,  and  will  have  a  permanent  value  as  an  explanation  ot 
that  influential  system  of  religious  philosophy." — Andover  Review. 

"  Dr.  Shedd's  great  power  is  in  the  clearness  and  fulness  and  exactness  of  his  doc- 
trinal statements,  and  in  their  illustration.  He  is  a  master  of  sentences.  No  one  can 
doubt  his  meaning.  These  volumes  are  therefore  eminently  readable  and  many  an 
earnest  student  will  find  strength  and  inspiration  in  reading  them  thoroughly  from  end 
to  end." — Chicago  Standard. 

"Into  these  ample  volumes,  as  into  a  reservoir,  have  flowed  all  the  streams  of  Dr. 
Shedd's  lifelong  studies — literary,  ethical,  philosophical,  exegetical,  scientific,  and  theo- 
logical. It  is  delightful  to  think  of  the  usefulness  for  generations  of  these  volumes  to 
ministers  and  students.  To  Dr.  Shedd  we  extend  our  hearty  thanks  for  this  great 
work." — New  York  Evangelist. 

"There  are  two  features  of  the  work  that  specially  aid  in  making  it  a  fine  text-book. 
In  the  first  place,  it  is  didactic  rather  than  polemic.  He  states,  expounds,  and  defends 
what  he  believes  to  be  the  true  view  and  spends  little  time  in  expounding  and  opposing 
heresies.  In  the  second  place,  the  discussions  are  compact.  The  style  is  absolutely 
clear,  and  no  subject  that  he  undertakes  to  unfold  is  at  all  slighted,  but  there  is  no  w^ste 
of  words.  We  congratulate  Dr.  Shedd  on  the  completion  of  this  great  work.  We 
congratulate  the  readers  of  theology  on  their  possession  of  u." — Rev.  John  DeWitt,  in 
The  Prcsl>yteria7i  Revi^-zu. 

"The  students  of  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  will  find  it  very  profitable  to  put  this  work 
beside  his.  On  some  of  the  i)articulars  of  the  Calvinistic  or  Augustmian,  or  Pauline 
system,  the  two  differ.  The  contrast  in  the  plan  and  working  out  and  style  of  the  two 
works  is  great,  Kut  they  are  the  complements,  each  of  the  other.  It  will  be  an  intel- 
lectual tonic  to  read  the  two  together.      We  wish  that  every  minister  had  them  both." 

— Presbyterian  Journal. 

"This  vigorous,  mature,  and  stately  work  is  likely  to  become  one  of  the  standard 
authorities  of  scholarly  orthodoxy.  Its  chief  peculiarities  are  its  solidity,  scriptiiral- 
ness,  and  massive  logical  force.  Professor  Shedd  is  himself  a  master  in  thf'ol.-.gy.  and 
he  has  reverence  fsr  masters  in  his  own  department.' — Ottr  Day.  . 


Dr.  Shedd's  Works. 


"  These  volumes  will  take  rank  as  they  will  naturally  be  compared  with,  the  ency- 
clopjedic  treatise  of  Dr.  Charles  Hodge,  and  they  will  stand  well  this  severe  test.  Less 
full  and  exhaustive  in  the  citation  of  aulhorities  and  the  discussion  of  opposing  views,  its 
positive  and  constructive  features  are  equally  strong.  In  one  feature  Dr.  Shedd's 
treatment  of  theological  questions  will  be  more  satisfactory  to  many  minds  than  Dr. 
Hodge's,  and  that  is,  the  wider  scope  and  office  he  accords  to  the  reason,  in  the  formula- 
tion and  defence  of  doctrines.  He  writes  from  the  postulate  that  while  the  reason  may 
not  independently  discover  the  dogmas  of  revealed  religion,  and  a  revelation  is  necessary, 
yet  a  true  dogma,  when  revealed,  will  be  so  accordant  with  reason,  that  its  aid  may  and 
must  be  mvoked  for  its  understanding  and  confirmation." — Christian  Intelligencer, 


DR.  SHEDD'S  OTHER  WORKS. 


A      HISTORY      OF       CHRISTIAN 

DOCTRINE.    Two  vols.,  crown  8vo. 
Seventh  edition,  cloth,  $5.00. 

HOMILETICS     AND     PASTORAL 

THEOLOGY.     One  vol.,  crown  8vo. 
Seventh  edition,  cloth,  $2.50. 

A  CONCISE  ANALYTICAL  COM- 
MENTARY ON  ST.  PAUL'S  EPIS- 
TLE TO  THE  ROMANS.  One  vol., 
crown  8vo,  cloth,  $2.50. 

SERMONS   TO   THE    SPIRITUAL 

MAN.     One    vol.,    crown    8vo.,  cloth, 
^2.50. 


SERMONS   TO     THE     NATURAL 

MAN.     One  vol.,  crown  8vo.      Third 
edition,  cloth,  $2.50. 

THEOLOGICAL  ESSAYS.  One  vol., 
8vo.  Enlarged  and  carefully  revised 
edition,  cloth,  <$2.5o. 

LITERARY  ESSAYS.  A  series  that 
relate  principally  to  /Esthetics  and  Lit- 
erature. With  portrait.  One  vol., 
crown,  Svo,  cloth,  $2.50. 

THE   DOCTRINE    OF    ENDLESS 

PUNISHMENT.       One  vol.,   crown 

8vo.,  $1.50. 


SERMONS  TO  THE  SPIRITUAL  MAN. 

"  The  thought  which  they  express  is  not  only  profound  and  well  wrought  out, 
but  it  has  a  certain  grip  on  the  mind  which  insures  more  than  a  temporary  influence 
however  strong  that  may  be." — Congregationalist,  Boston. 

"All  are  nobly  written.  All  contain  passages  which  could  have  been  produced 
by  no  one  but  a  master  of  style.  Most  of  them  are  truly  eloquent,  and  their  eloquence 
is  of  the  highest  type." — Presbyterian,  Pa. 

"The  last  two  discourses,  entitled  "  Every  Christian  a  Debtor  to  the  Pagan," 
and  "  The  Certain  Success  of  Evangelistic  Labor,"  place  the  duty  of  the  world's 
Christianization  upon  its  broad  Scriptural  foundations,  and  set  forth  the  reasons  for 
its  progressive  and  ultimate  triumphs  with  inspiring  eloquence." — Christian  Intelli= 
^encer.  New  York. 

"  To  all  minds  awake  and  in  earnest  touching  spiritual  things,  we  can  unre- 
servedly commend  this  volume.  It  will  be  sure  to  aid  in  the  struggle  against  sin,  and 
in  victory  over  it." — New  York  Evangelist. 

"The  sermons  are  peculiarly  adapted  for  reading,  and  they  are  among  the  most 
spiritual  and  thoughtful  discourses  that  have  been  published  in  recent  years."— 
Wesleyan  Christian  Advocate. 


Dr.  Shcdd's    U^orks. 


"Dr.  Shedd's  sermons  command  respect  from  the  intcllertual  ability  of  iheif 
luthor.  They  are  interesting  exhibitions  of  the  way  in  which  a  modern  Calvinist, 
Ivho  liolds  with  great  tenacity  to  the  Augiistinian  theology,  views  divine  progress  in 
its  relation  to  human  character  and  destiny.  J'he  new  departure  has  not  yet  invaded 
Dr.  Shedd's  mind  to  any  extent.  Consequently,  to  a  progressive  Christian  thinker, 
\he  premises  of  most  of  his  discourses  are  unacceptable." — Christian  Register, 
Boston. 

"They  are  distinguished  by  a  clear  and  luminous  style,  and  the  boldness  and 
t^igor  which  comes  from  profound  conviction.  No  better  volume  of  sermons,  none 
more  thoughtful,  spiritual,  or  satisfying,  has  come  from  the  press  for  a  long  time."— < 
Christian  at  Work,  AVw  ^''ork. 

"  We  commend  these  sermons  to  our  readers  ;  for  though,  as  a  Presbyterian  divine, 
we  could  not  endorse  all  his  views,  yet,  upon  the  great  essential  doctrines  and  duties 
of  Christianity,  we  are  much  at  one  with  him." — Churchinan,  New  York, 

A  HISTORY    OF    CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINE. 

"  Dr.  Shedd  has  furnished  an  important  contribution  to  the  study  of  church  his- 
tory. To  have  made  a  readable  book — a  book  which  must  interest  the  general  scholar 
as  well  as  the  professed  theologian— on  a  topic  so  difficult  and  so  remote  from  the 
ordinary  interests  and  literary  currents  of  the  time,  is  itself  a  rare  and  very  great 
merit,  demanding  graceful  recognition  from  all  the  scholars  of  the  land."— AVr/A 
American  Reviezv. 

"It  is  many  years  since  a  more  valuable  contribution  has  been  made,  in  this 
country  or  England,  to  theological  literature  ;  one  the  study  of  which  will  yield  riper 
fruits  of  Christian  knowledge.  These  volumes  are  marked  by  a  thoroughness  of 
knowledge  and  clearness  of  statement,  as  well  as  by  a  certain  -ntnl  element  which 
pervades  them,  and  which  shows  the  love  of  the  author  for  his  great  theme,  and  that 
he  takes  his  position,  not  without  but  within  his  subject,  and  so  relates  the  transfor- 
mations and  developments  of  religious  thought  as  if  he  had  himself  passed  through 
them." — Bibliotheca  Sacra, 

"  \ye  hold  that  this  is  the  most  important  contribution  that  has  been  made  to  our 
theological  literature  during  the  present  age." — Presbyterian  Standard. 

"  In  our  judgment,  no  production  of  greater  moment  has  been  given  to  the  public 
for  a  long  time." — Princeton  Revicrv, 

'"A  body  of  theological  history  which  is  in  form  sis  perfect  as  it  is  in  substance 
excellent." — N.  Y.  Evening  Post. 

"  It  well  deserves  an  honorable  and  permanent  place  in  the  standard  literature  of 
theology." — Nezv  Englander, 

"A  rich  addition  to  our  theological  literature." — American  Theological  Reviezi: 

"Dr.  Shedd's  History  of  Christian  Doctrine,  on  its  first  appearance,  was  unani- 
mously recognized  as  filling  with  remarkable  success  a  blank  that  had  existed  in  our 
English  literature  on  this  important  subject,  and  it  still  holds  the  foremost  place  in 
W^orks  of  this  class." — Edinburgh  Daily  Review. 

HOMILETICS    AND    PASTORAL    THEOLOGY. 

"The  work  will  be  found  to  be  an  admirable  guide  and  stimulus  in  whatever  per< 
tains  to  this  department  of  theology.  The  student  finds  himself  in  the  hands  of  a 
master  able  to  quicken  and  enlarge  his  scope  and  spirit.  The  homiletical  precepts 
are  well  illustrated  by  the  author's  own  style,  which  is  muscular,  while  quivering 
with  nervous  life.  Nowadays  one  rarely  reads  such  good  English  writing— elevated 
and  clear,  sinewy  and  flexible,  transparent  for  the  thought.  Each  topic  is  handled 
in  a  true  progressive  method.  Our  young  ministers  may  well  make  a  study  of  this 
book." — A  >ncrican  Theol.  Reviev.'. 


Br.    ShcdcVs    Works. 


"We  have  read  this  book  with  almost  unqualified  approval.  We  cannot  but  regari! 
n  as,  on  the  whole,  the  very  best  production  of  the  kind  with  which  we  are  acquainted 
The  topics  discussed  are  of  the  fiist  importance  to  every  minister  of  Christ  engaged  is 
•ctive  service,  and  their  discussion  is  conducted  by  earnestness  as  well  as  ability,  and  in 
a  style  which  for  clear,  vigorous,  and  unexceptionable  English,  is  itself  a  model." — N.  V 
Evangelist. 

"The  ablest  book  on  the  subject  which  the  generation  has  produced." —  Christian 
Intelligencer. 

"Dr.  Shedd's  Homiletics  and  Pastoral  Theology  has  everywhere  been  welcomed 
as  a  sagacious  and  valuable  contribution  to  the  equipment  of  our  rising  preachers  '' 
Edinburgh  Daily  Rtview. 

SERMONS    TO    THE    NATURAL    MAN. 

"These  Sermons  are  an  excellent  course  upon  the  theology  of  the  law.  Dr.  Shedd 
tS  one  of  the  best  known  in  this  country  of  American  theologians,  and  those  who  ara 
acquainted  vnth  his  writings  do  not  requn-e  to  be  told  that  he  carries  out  his  ideas  with 
perspicuity,  force,  and  conclusive  completeness." — Edinburgh  Daily  Review. 

"The  reader,  whether  he  assent  to  the  deductions  of  the  author  or  not,  must  admit 
that  they  are  enforced  with  logical  conciseness,  a  rare  wealth  of  learning,  and  an  uncom- 
mon ability  of  argumentation." — N.  Y.  Evcni7ig  Post. 

"  Wc  commend  this  volume  to  all  who  love  the  'strong  meat'  of  christian  truth, 
«ixd  who  rejoice  in  the  adaptation  of  the  power  of  the  gospel  to  the  deepest  needs  of  the 
'  natural  man.' " — Naf  I  Baptist,  Phila.  ^    - 

"The  author  has  given  us  a  collection  of  clear,  log-Ical,  earnest  discourses,  well 
adapted  to  the  spirit  of  the  times.  V\^e  specially  commend  the  work  to  preachers  of  the 
gospel."  — Methodist  Protestant,  Baltimore. 

"These  sermons  are  clear  in  thought,  the  at>'le  is  hicid  and  siinp.e,  and  free  from 
llic  much-worn  phrases  of  the  pulpit.  The  arguments  of  the  author  are  well  arranged  and 
put  with  great  force." — Christian  Union. 

THEOLOGICAL     ESSAYS. 

»'These  Essay*  bear  traces  on  every  page,  not  only  of  a  mind  discipiined  to  clffc 
thinking,  and  at  home  in  the  abstractions  of  philosophy  and  theology,  but  versed  in  thfl 
noblest^ works  of  literature,  and  equally  able  to  appreciate  the  creations  oi  art  and  imagi 
nation.  The  terseness  and  vigor  of  the  style  are  well  mated  to  the  character  of  the 
\ho\x^t.''—Nt'iv  Euglafider.  .    ,         ,  ,  •     •         r        ^-         * 

"These  Essays  are  all  marked  by  profound  thought  and  perspicuity  ot  sentiment 
The  author  has  achieved  a  high  reputation  for  the  union  of  philosophic  insight  with  genu- 
ine scholarship;  of  depth  and  clearness  of  thought  with  force  and  elegance  of  style j 
and  for  profound  views  of  sin  and  grace,  cherished  not  merely  on  theoreti-al,  but  still 
Ciore  on  moral  and  experimental  grounds."— Prz«r^/tf«  i^^t'zVw.  ,      .    , 

"The  Essay  upon  Evolution,  is  an  extraordinary  specimen  of  the  metaphysical 
treatise,  and  the  charm  of  its  rhetoric  is  not  less  noticeable  Prof.  Shedd  never  puts  his 
creed  under  a  bushel  :  but  there  are  few  students  of  any  sect  or  class  that  will  not  denvo 
rK».t&ss\stz.nc&iTom\{\s\2ihors,.''—Universalist  Quarterly. 

"  The  tendency  of  this  volume  is  to  encourage  doctrinal  iwvestigation  and  doctrinal 
preaching  •  to  stimulate  clergymen  to  improve  their  methods  of  study,  and  to  quicken 
dieir  love  of  inquiry  into  the  profoundest  truths  of  r&\\2\on."—Biblwtheca  Sacra. 

"These  Essays  abound  in  strong  thought,  firmly  and  clearly  expressed,  and  in  thu 
the  reader  of  a  different  school  of  theology  will  take  a  pleasure,  while  he  may  dissent 
from  the  theory  propounded."— 7I/(?//w^2J/  Quarterly.  ,    ^       , 

"A  book  equally  remarkable  for  profound  thought  and  for  dogmatic  seventy 
Perhaps  no  stronger  work  has  gone  forth  of  kte  from  any  American  theologian,  nor  an j 
work  wliich  at  the  same  time  runs  so  wholly  in  the  face  of  the  present  drift  of  religioui 
lentiment  and  scientific  study."— iW7t;  Vork  Times.  .    ,  r  „  ,  ,,  . 

=  ' The  Genevan  reformer  has  probably  no  abler  or  more  devoted  follower,  at  the 
present  day  than  the  author  of  these  essays.  In  the  circle  of  his  readers  he  will  find 
tnany  who  regard  the  study  of  his  writings  as  an  admirable  exercise,  for  tne  vigyr  ol 
theij  statements,  the  closeness  of  their  logic,  and  the  athleuc  grasp  of  their  conc.usiotis. 
»ltho»gh  their  own  convictions  are  not  represented  m  his  system  of  theology.  —JV*w> 

♦'Dr.  Shedd's  weighty  and  forceful  rhetoric  has  been  the  admiration  and  de«F«ii 
•>{  most  of  his  readers.  To  weight  and  force,  we  must  add  one  other  qualitjr  which  dis- 
tinguishes it.  namely,  /er7>or.  Every  theological  student  and  every  minister  shouW 
aossess,  and  should  not  only  read,  bw  ttudy  this  volume."-    The  Presbyterian 


Dr.  Shedd's   WorJcs. 


COMMENTARY    ON    ROMANS. 

"  No  better  discipline  could  be  suggested  to  a  young  minister  than  a  patient  and  faith- 
ful study  of  a  volume  like  this  .  .  .  .  not  only  because  it  is  the  freshest,  but 
because  it  is  so  purely  intellectual  and  spiritual,  wasting  no  time  upon  side  issues,  but 
[grappling  manfully  with  the  highest  and   most   recondite   themes."— C//r/f//Vi« /wrf/// 

"  We  know  of  no  commentary  by  any  living  author  on  this  epistle  that,  in  our  esti 
mation,  deserves  to  be  esteemed  above  it." — Hart/ord  Religious  Herald. 

"To  the  thorough  learning  of  an  accomplished  scholar,  it  adds  a  style  of  special 
grace,  luminous  without  superficiality,  and,  sparkling  without  levity."'— /.«/'//<';rt«  iMis- 
sionn  ry. 

'•We  consider  this  volume  to  be  indispensable  to  a  theological  library."— AW// ;//<w^i 
Central  Prt'sbyterian. 

"We  have  been  instructed,  interested,  and  edified  as  we  have  turned  over  his 
pages,  and  while  not  agreeing  with  him  in  all  particulars,  we  have  always  been  com- 
pelif-.d  by  him  to  revise  our  views,  and  give  a  reason  for  our  preference."— CV/r/j//rt«  at 
VFork. 

"The  commentary  is  brief ;  there  is  no  verbiage,  no  amplification,  no  preaching;  it 
is  as  clear  as  crystal." — Illustrated  Christian  Weekly. 

"We  like  thoroughly  the  keenly  critical  scholarship  of  Dr.  Shedd's  book  and  the 
vigor  of  his  style.  ....  We  commend  the  work  as  an  excellent  stimulus,  and  a 
great  help  in  doctrinal  study." — Congregationalist. 

"  Like  the  previous  writings  of  Profes.sor  Shedd,  this  learned  and  scholarly  volume 
is  remarkable  for  the  acute  insight  with  which  it  applies  profound  philosophical  principles 
to  the  elucidation  of  religious  doctrine." — ^V".  Y.   Tribune. 

LITERARY     ESS  AYS. 

"  His  productions  are  never  of  an  ephemeral  character;  though  often  separated  by 
a  wide  interval  of  years,  they  possess  the  unity  which  grows  out  of  thoroughness  o( 
examination  and  e:irnestness  of  conviction  ;  powerlul  in  argument,  lucid  in  e.vposition. 
and  effective  in  sty-le,  they  challenge  the  interest  of  many  readers  who  arc  unable  to 
assent  to  their  corclusions.'' — N.  Y.  Tribune. 

"  Here  is  somethin?  deserving  a  permanent  place  in  the  realm  of  reading 

We  wish  to  notice  especially,  commending  it  at  the  same  time  to  the  careful  study  of 
everyone,  the  essay  on  'The  Influence  and  Method  of  English  Studies.'  ....  We 
can,  without  hesitation,  say,  that  it  is  one  of  the  most  profound,  and  thoughtful,  and 
scholarly  producti  jns  on  this  subject  that  we  have  ever  read." — The  Churchman. 

"The  essays,  one  and  all,  are  worthy  of  the  Professor's  pen.  They  reveal  extensive 
reading,  culture  of  a  high  order,  and  sympathy  with  all  that  is  true  and  beautiful  and 
good  in  nature,  in  life,  and  in  art." — N.   Y.  Srotsrnan. 

"They  bear  the  marks  of  the  author's  scholarship,  dignity,  and  polish  of  style,  and 
profound  and  severe  convictions  of  truth  and  righteousness  as  the  basis  of  culture  as 
well  as  character." — Chicago  Interior. 

"The  severe  and  chastened  beauty  ofhis  style  is  a  fit  vehicle  for  the  lofty  truths  among 
which  his  mind  ranges,  and  which  he  here  announces  and  defends." — Presbyterian, 

"Dr.  .Shedd  deals  with  themes  not  of  pa'-sing  but  of  enduring  iniportance,  and  his 
productions  on  these  subjects,  being  tho^e  of  a  wide  reader  and  profound  thinker,  will 
always  be  valuable." — Christia?i  at  Work. 


*^*  For    sale    by    all    booksellers,   or   sent,  post-paid,  upon   receipt    of 
irice,  by 

CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS,  Publishers. 

743  AND  745  Broadway,  New  York. 


Date  Due 


DEC  15 


1993 


L11Q2J 


k^-^Z 


7. 


AG  12^AB 


NOV  1 1 


UM^x^ 


tiiV-_Sf. 


^^ 


59 


*> 


axia^^sa 


-Speer  L.brarv 


If^STa  bl034_80V\ 

^SA^Hx  rHER  ? 

A  THEOLOGICAL  QUESTION   FOR  THE  TIMES. 

By  CHARLES  AUGUSTUS  BRIGGS,  D.D., 

Professor  in  the  Union  Theological  Saninary^  New  York  City, 

1  VOLUME,  CEOWN  8vo.   PEICE,  $1.75. 

contents. 
Drifting — Orthodoxy —Mistaken  Attitudes— Change  of 
Base — Excesses — Failures — Departures— Perplexities 
—Progress  in  Theology— Christian  Union. 

Dr.  Briggs'  book  is  bold,  radical,  almost  startling.  It  is  the  product 
of  more  than  twenty  years  of  study  in  the  history  of  Puritan  theology 
and  especially  of  the  authors  of  the  Westminster  Standards.  The  work 
is  written  and  published  in  view  of  the  agitation  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church  regarding  the  revision  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  presents 
facts  and  arguments  which  every  one  interested  in  this  question  must 
heed.  The  work,  however,  has  a  far  wider  scope.  The  author's  main 
contention  is  that  all  Christian  denominations  have  drifted  from  their 
moorings.  "The  process  of  dissolution,"  he  says,  "has  gone  on  long 
enough.  The  time  has  come  for  the  reconstruction  of  theology,  of 
polity,  of  worship,  and  of  Christian  life  and  work.  The  drift  in  the 
Church  ought  to  stop.  The  barriers  between  the  Protestant  denomina- 
tions should  be  removed  and  an  organic  union  formed.  An  Alliance 
should  be  made  between  Protestantism  and  Romanism  and  all  other 
branches  of  Christendom." 

"  The  book  comes  to  us  fulfilling  all  anticipations.  Interesting  as  a 
novel,  almost  elegant  in  its  language,  clear  in  its  expression,  marvel- 
lous in  showing  research,  the  book  will  pay  largely  for  its  reading." — 
The  Christian  Inquirer. 

"A  work  that  should  be  read  by  all  who  are  interested  in  religious 
discussions.  Dr.  Briggs'  researches  have  been  pursued  in  a  catholic 
spirit,  and  the  result  of  his  labors  should  have  a  place  in  every  theolog- 
ical library." — Boston  Saturday  Evening  Gazette. 

"It  is  a  remarkable  work  and  is  sure  to  receive  attention." — The 

Nation. 

SUPPLIED   TO  CLERGYMEN  AT  SPECIAL  NET  RATES. 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS,  Publishers, 

743-745  Broadvray,  New  York. 


